# Sport and "real" work



## Jim Engel

The thread on where we are going, before being taken over by the children again, provided some serious things to think about. The struggle between work and show is in a sense three way, that is, between work, sport and show. In thinking about this, it becomes increasingly obvious to me that the problem with the divergence between sport and "real" workis caused by the show oriented FCI organizations, the KNPV and NVBK are independent and their trials are much more realistic. 

These thoughts have led me to include the following passage into the chapter on trials in the book:

"It must be understood that in the early years the process was imperfect and sporadic, not all or even most German Shepherds actually held a Schutzhund title and the tension between emerging show breeders and the police level trainers intensified in the 1920s as explored further in the chapter covering German Shepherd history. Toward the end of his life von Stephanitz implored "Take this trouble for me; Make sure my shepherd dog remains a working dog, for I have struggled all my life long for that aim." His concern was not about external pressure but rather the enemy within, the conformation oriented breeders he struggled against throughout his tenure in office. This internal struggle for the soul of the German Shepherd Dog commenced in the very beginning, even prior to the SV in the days of the Phylax Society, and is ongoing even today."


This is a very important discussion.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Let's be realistic. Regardless of venue until the teeth actually meet the flesh under a real life situation and not suit or sleeve, all the training in the world proves nothing. You may hope it does but until that first live bite it's speculation.


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Hello
every time when someone wear a suit, a sleeve or any kind of visual protection it is done with realistic.
i think the most people in knpv and some in nvbk walk with open eyes through their sport and more important these breeders want really produce working dogs.size,color or papers is not important. a good working dog is able to do every kind of job. in my time for nato we have get the most dogs from knpv, all with "koerung". really great dogs on the suit,but not able to find a person with out suit in the forest. you must train that and you must know how to train that. in real scenario no one make moves like a helper or or offer a body part for a bite. 



Jim Engel said:


> The thread on where we are going, before being taken over by the children again, provided some serious things to think about. The struggle between work and show is in a sense three way, that is, between work, sport and show. In thinking about this, it becomes increasingly obvious to me that the problem with the divergence between sport and "real" workis caused by the show oriented FCI organizations, the KNPV and NVBK are independent and their trials are much more realistic.
> 
> These thoughts have led me to include the following passage into the chapter on trials in the book:
> 
> "It must be understood that in the early years the process was imperfect and sporadic, not all or even most German Shepherds actually held a Schutzhund title and the tension between emerging show breeders and the police level trainers intensified in the 1920s as explored further in the chapter covering German Shepherd history. Toward the end of his life von Stephanitz implored "Take this trouble for me; Make sure my shepherd dog remains a working dog, for I have struggled all my life long for that aim." His concern was not about external pressure but rather the enemy within, the conformation oriented breeders he struggled against throughout his tenure in office. This internal struggle for the soul of the German Shepherd Dog commenced in the very beginning, even prior to the SV in the days of the Phylax Society, and is ongoing even today."
> 
> 
> This is a very important discussion.


----------



## julie allen

What do you think the difference is betweewn a good working dog vs. a good sport dog?

I don't compete in sports, but some of the things that a patrol dog needs, aren't necessary in SAR. With that said, I train with a few PDs and enjoy the bitework, for real life. I see how it is easy to train a pup to bite a sleeve in controlled environments, and it takes more of a dog on real scenarios.

Tracking in sport, is much different from the tracking we do with missing persons. 

Hrd dogs cover a large area and work for hours. Quite different from scent work competition.


----------



## Jim Engel

Stefan Schaub said:


> Hello
> every time when someone wear a suit, a sleeve or any kind of visual protection it is done with realistic.
> i think the most people in knpv and some in nvbk walk with open eyes through their sport and more important these breeders want really produce working dogs.size,color or papers is not important. a good working dog is able to do every kind of job. in my time for nato we have get the most dogs from knpv, all with "koerung". really great dogs on the suit,but not able to find a person with out suit in the forest. you must train that and you must know how to train that. in real scenario no one make moves like a helper or or offer a body part for a bite.


Stefan,
You sound like a serious person with real experience. I would like to take advantage of this and ask a couple of questions.
How many "real scenarios" have you personally witnessed in your entire life ?

Could you described several that illustrate how they are more difficult for the
dog than the sport exercises?

My guess is that the majority of "real life" experiences are on a confused, frightened person that is relatively easy for the dog, so one "real life" success does not necessarily prove the dog to be superior unless you know the circumstances.

As an engineer by training my tendency is to look for statistical evidence, anecdotal stories are interesting and can lead to verifiable conclusions, but need to be substantiated and put in perspective.


----------



## rick smith

Jim
those are definitely legitimate questions.

- one thing i have always had a hard time with when comparing a sport bite to a live bite "on the street" is that all bite sports are trained thru a repetition of similar movements that a dog is conditioned to respond to. for obvious reasons decoys must wear big suits that restrict their movement no matter how agile they are
- but how much the suit or equipment itself makes it less "real" would seem to be a lot less than the choreographed drills for each part of the competition which the dog has obviously learned thru hundreds of repetitions...i see these as "cues" rather than "threats" and that alone would seem to detract from any degree of true "protection" testing
- if i said it is just a "game", many serious people who train at high levels might take offense, but to me there seems to be a world of difference between any bite sport and a working situation for a PSD/MWD, which happens in a much wider variety of situations in many more different environments than on a competition field, and this would make comparison very difficult, wouldn't it ?


----------



## James Downey

I am on the IPO side of things. I am not sure where this discord is? I see plenty of breeders selling IPO dogs to departments and the departments being completely satisified with the dogs they are getting. In fact, what I do is IPO people returning dogs to the breeder cause it's not enough, and PD buying the return and being elated with the dog. I also a Malinois guy, and Malinois can do anything. LOL


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I hope to see some "good, knowlegable" feedback on this thread from posters myself. While I don't train for bitework, seems much is deja vu to anyone with common sense and an understanding of dogs.


----------



## Randy Allen

What springs to my mind is just what was von Stephanitz's vision of a true working dog?
If that question shows ignorance on my part then so be it, but it seems to me that the definition of 'working' has changed as well as widened considerably from a hundred years ago.

I believe it isn't just semantics.
It's a fundamental change in what we consider real work.
Invariably these type of discussions turn to ppd's, MWD's and PD's. But is a seeing eye dog any less of a serious working dog? Or SAR, how about a cadaver dog or the dog thats still used in it's original environment; herding/guardian? Are they any less serious working dogs?

I think von Stephanitz was talking about breeding to; intelligence, physically sound as well as agile and of stalwart character traits that include loyalty, tenaciousness and willingness to give it the all in (no matter what the 'it' happened to be).


----------



## Jim Engel

Randy Allen said:


> What springs to my mind is just what was von Stephanitz's vision of a true working dog?
> If that question shows ignorance on my part then so be it, but it seems to me that the definition of 'working' has changed as well as widened considerably from a hundred years ago.
> 
> I believe it isn't just semantics.
> It's a fundamental change in what we consider real work.
> Invariably these type of discussions turn to ppd's, MWD's and PD's. But is a seeing eye dog any less of a serious working dog? Or SAR, how about a cadaver dog or the dog thats still used in it's original environment; herding/guardian? Are they any less serious working dogs?
> 
> I think von Stephanitz was talking about breeding to; intelligence, physically sound as well as agile and of stalwart character traits that include loyalty, tenaciousness and willingness to give it the all in (no matter what the 'it' happened to be).


Actually von Srephanitz put a lot of emphasis on bringing dogs with real herding experience and particularly with an HGH title into the breeding lines. Many of these dogs were without documentation at least into the 1930s. A lot of the early dogs had PD or police dog certificates, seperate from the Schutzhund and apparently more prestigious.
German Shepherds have been pretty much phased out of seeing eye work, and when the were used it was primariily the females. (Read "Working Dogs" Warner and Humphary.)

Dogs and GSD s have done many things without protection work, but none of this
can replace a protection test for breeding, it is what defines the dog.


----------



## Aimee Markle

Jim Engel said:


> Actually von Srephanitz put a lot of emphasis on bringing dogs with real herding experience and particularly with an HGH title into the breeding lines. Many of these dogs were without documentation at least into the 1930s. A lot of the early dogs had PD or police dog certificates, seperate from the Schutzhund and apparently more prestigious.
> German Shepherds have been pretty much phased out of seeing eye work, and when the were used it was primariily the females. (Read "Working Dogs" Warner and Humphary.)
> 
> Dogs and GSD s have done many things without protection work, but none of this
> can replace a protection test for breeding, it is what defines the dog.


 

Jim what is your postion to make changes within the breed? Tougher temperament testing? Tougher titles? 

What is the debate exactly in regards to working vs real, as you are framing it? I do believe this is an interesting subject, and I'd like to understand your position. 

My position from an end user standpoint is that a good dog is a good dog, regardless of the venue. Sport, police, herding, or a family dog. One good dog is ABLE to do it all, or any part. Is that realistic? I believe so. Add on top of that a dog that meets the breed standards for confirmation, and you have a total package? Realistic? I don't know enough about confirmation to have an opinion. 

Without confimation, the are just dogs, though, aren't they? Everything would bleed together and be a dog with no delineation between breeds.


Dave C.


----------



## Edward Weiss

" it becomes increasingly obvious to me that the problem with the divergence between sport and "real" workis caused by the show oriented FCI organizations, the KNPV and NVBK are independent and their trials are much more realistic. "

Jim there is merit in the observation, however there is a limit to what can be done in "Sport events". 
PSA is as close to real as we can do in the US of A with attendant liability and the lurking "anti" legislative forces. 

In a club I belong to there are a number of dual purpose dogs as well as there get becoming working service dogs.
Sport to real transition for them was technique and sorting this out in training rather than events is probably the reality in this country. 
Have seen the switch flipped in sporty dogs over and over to real with muzzle work.


----------



## drew sterner

Aimee Markle said:


> Jim what is your postion to make changes within the breed? Tougher temperament testing? Tougher titles?
> 
> What is the debate exactly in regards to working vs real, as you are framing it? I do believe this is an interesting subject, and I'd like to understand your position.
> 
> My position from an end user standpoint is that a good dog is a good dog, regardless of the venue. Sport, police, herding, or a family dog. One good dog is ABLE to do it all, or any part. Is that realistic? I believe so. Add on top of that a dog that meets the breed standards for confirmation, and you have a total package? Realistic? I don't know enough about confirmation to have an opinion.
> 
> Without confimation, the are just dogs, though, aren't they? Everything would bleed together and be a dog with no delineation between breeds.
> 
> 
> Dave C.



why does there have to be confirmation, why cant we just follow a standard that is evaluated within the working title. There is NO need for confirmation in a working dog, it will only ruin it.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

James Downey said:


> I am on the IPO side of things. I am not sure where this discord is? I see plenty of breeders selling IPO dogs to departments and the departments being completely satisified with the dogs they are getting. In fact, what I do is IPO people returning dogs to the breeder cause it's not enough, and PD buying the return and being elated with the dog. I also a Malinois guy, and Malinois can do anything. LOL


Change IPO to pretty much any sport, IPO, FR, etc and I have to agree with James. Add to it "brokers" because I actually see more brokers than breeders selling these dogs. 

I also don't think the line between "real" and "sport" is nearly as clear cut as some people would like to believe. I see to many dogs who live with one foot in each "world" to think otherwise.


----------



## maggie fraser

drew sterner said:


> why does there have to be confirmation, why cant we just follow a standard that is evaluated within the working title. There is NO need for confirmation in a working dog, it will only ruin it.


Unless I am mistaken...._conformation_ was the correct term and not confirmation... big difference in the definition ?

As I understand the post, dogs which conform to the established breed type....give you breed,,,otherwise, it is just a dog. And of course good conformation is required in a working animal regardless of it's breed,,,,it is the definition of that which is good conformation, which is in disagreement within many breeds.


----------



## Edward Egan

drew sterner said:


> why does there have to be confirmation, why cant we just follow a standard that is evaluated within the working title. There is NO need for confirmation in a working dog, it will only ruin it.


Isn't the only real problem with conformation is that beauty trumps functionality. Isn't that the only thing we really need to change. I don't believe we can truley test whether a dog will live bite without deploying it on a live bite senerio.

Unless thows within this thread breed or get involved in dog politics are we really changing anything with all these thoughts and arguments? Or are we really just pissing in the wind?


----------



## Jim Engel

My view is step one would be to go back to the old Schutzhund of 30 years ago with the attack on the handler and all of the other things, and rigerous judging. 40 points for the courage test, so that you don't have dogs at the championship level failing to get a grip on the courage test, only losing 3 points and going V.

Next, make the show dogs pass real Schutzhund trials, not the watered down show dog specials.

To go into the ring to be Sieger make the dogs go to a specific Schutzhund III trial for their region, field, helper and judge selected by a region or the national club.

Next, get rid of Schutzhund II and have a new Schutzhund III with the old courage test, and have
the dog released when the helper is 60 yards away. But do the courage test twice, and have a call off one one or the other, on the judge's signal or by draw for the trial.

Next, stop the pussification, call it Schutzhund and leave IPO for the play dogs.


----------



## Jim Engel

OK, about all the other things. A police dog should be qualified by a police
dog trial, and the GSD, Malinois, Bouviers etc were police dogs, not general
purpose dogs.

Being the best search and rescue dog in the history of the world is not
enough to make it breed worthy in a police breed.


----------



## Adam Swilling

Aimee Markle said:


> Without confimation, the are just dogs, though, aren't they? Everything would bleed together and be a dog with no delineation between breeds.
> 
> 
> Dave C.


 You might not be able to call a dog one breed or another, but you just might end up with more ability in the animal. I personally don't care what breed a dog is, most working dog people don't. I don't care about size, color, or anything else in regard to confirmation. 

Randy brought up a very valid point: "It's a fundamental change in what we consider real work". I, personally, don't think that a seeing eye dog is less of a working dog than a PPD. It's just a different job. Where the problem arises, IMO, is when a dog that is supposed to be bred for a specific purpose doesn't foot the bill. Name me one breed that wasn't originally bred for a specific type of purpose with specific traits. 

In regard to sport vs. real, I don't care what you do, you can only make ANY bite sport real to a point. In the end, EVERY sport is a set group of exercises that you train for. Some are more realistic than others, but in the end you're training for specifics. Specifically speaking on PSD's or military K9's, let's be honest: how often is a PSD used for an actual bite? Furthermore, how often does the person actually fight back? Edward brought up muzzle work used with sporty dogs to get the switch to flip. A valid point. But what made it flip? The fact that the scenarios are now very REAL to the dog. The bad guy doesn't back down, the dog must continue to fight, eventhough it can't bite. I've said before, a muzzle will separate the men from the boys quickly. 

IMO, yes, the tests for a protection dog one is considering for breeding should be harder. Many of us have seen it over and over again: the best dogs for breeding specifically for protection, etc. all have a little bit of a mean streak. And they're hard; they will and can take anything (literally and figuratively) that you throw at them. As far as I'm concerned, yes; make the tests and titles harder. All of them.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Aimee Markle said:


> ........ Dave C.


 :?:


Hi, Aimee/Dave,

I need you to PM me (or any mod) about the confusion as to who is posting here.

Thanks!


----------



## Bob Scott

Correct conformation for the show ring and correct conformation for the street K9 are a quantum leap apart.
One is a judgement call based on a few runs around a show ring and does the dog look good doing it. The other is based on the reality of a dog actually doing the work. 
I believe von Stepahnitz wanted a balanced dog. I don't believe that the show ring OR sport shows this. 
The original herding GSD needed the ability to work all day and still protect the shepherd. That calls for correct conformation AND correct temperment that has nothing to do with the cookie cutter dogs racing around a show ring and not so much from a 10-15 min performance on a sport field either.
Breeders today are breeding for any number of things. Looks, pet, forward aggression are just a few reasons. All fit a certain criteria even if we may not agree with it. Rare is the breeder (IMHO) that breeds for the whole, balanced dog today. Of course that gets into what "balanced" can mean. Probably just as many thoughts on that as there are breeders and owners.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Engel said:


> My guess is that the majority of "real life" experiences are on a confused, frightened person that is relatively easy for the dog, so one "real life" success does not necessarily prove the dog to be superior unless you know the circumstances.


Jim I have a bit of personal experience on this, plus the experience of my department for about 20 years and the experience of a good friend whose department averaged 1,400 finds for about 20 years. While some crooks fall into the _"confused, frightened person"_ class, they were in the very small minority, probably less than 5%. Most are either (some fall into more than one group) angry, assaultive, drunk, drugged, lying in wait - preparing to assault the K−9 and/or the officer, or something of that nature. Those circumstances are certainly not _"relatively easy for the dog."_ In fact, some of them put him to the test quite severely. I've been in encounters involving another officer and the K−9, where if any one of us had not been present, the crook probably would have prevailed. 

Many of my bites were during handler protection and none of those crooks fell into the category you describe. Some came during crowd control and those people were assaultive and angry (some were drunk or drugged, of course). Some of those people, AFTER the bite occurred, turned into the _"confused, frightened person"_ you describe. Some of them were hiding in buildings, and were found by the dog. Only one or two of them could be called _"confused [or] frightened."_ They probably feared being arrested, but I don't think that many of them were _"frightened" of the dog. 

During my time on the street, we dealt with the "Sinaloan Cowboys" who specifically trained to fight and beat police dogs with weapons of opportunity or they came prepared. They were certainly not "confused [or] frightened." 

If, in the case of a PPD, someone is bitten. I doubt that they'll fall into the category you describe either. More than likely they'll be assaultive and threatening. 

I think that what you state as "the majority of 'real life experiences" is instead a very small number of encounters between PPD's, PSD's and people they've bitten._


----------



## Jim Engel

Lou, 
Are there report logs where you can read descriptions of the engagements for a particular dog? I am sure there are many terrifying encounters every day, and many cops, fisherman and soldiers telling war stories that get better with every telling.

I think what this points out is that a major problem in America is that there is very little interaction and communication between American breeders and trainers and police handlers and trainers.. 
The police dog trial should be designed to produce as high a correlation between passing the trial and successful service; and to do this there needs to be real communication between actual police officers, police administrators and the people involved in breeding and amateur training.

This is lacking in America, and as long as we are dependent on Europeans we ill always be sucking on the last tit.


----------



## Randy Allen

I have always thought the GSD came from the herding/guardian lines and I've always thought von Stephanitz felt that should remain the well from which the GSD is sprung.
I don't believe the GSD's were always PSD's as such, any more than they were always MWDs in WW1. Nor do I believe von Stephanitz had PD work in mind when he put together the GSD any more then he could envission the range they could and have been used for. Those were just other uses found for them after the fact. The first line was always herding/guardian.
Ergo his plea to take care with how the breed was/is developed.

It can be argued, and I guess usually is, that he was addressing the show crowd of breeders, but really couldn't he just as well been talking to the breeders interested in man work? 

The HGH was a highly coveted prize irreguarless of whatever else was availiblefor titles in that era. It was a very tough test in it's day. And yes protection was part of the trial.


----------



## Jim Engel

Randy,
Read the von Stepheniitz book, one of the primary reasons for creating the breed, and the Belgian Shepherds and Bouviers to, is that the herding work was going away. Yes, absolutely, von Stephenitz emphasized the HGH because that was the wellspring of the working character, but that was rapidly becoming the past. When he devised new tests for ongoing breeding in was Schutzhund and breeding.

Some of this is discussed here:
http://www.angelplace.net/doc/GarrettBook.pdf

Background information:
http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch8.pdf

There is very little need for tending style dogs in Europe today,
and enormous need for good police style dogs.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Jim Engel said:


> My view is step one would be to go back to the old Schutzhund of 30 years ago with the attack on the handler and all of the other things, and rigerous judging. 40 points for the courage test, so that you don't have dogs at the championship level failing to get a grip on the courage test, only losing 3 points and going V.
> 
> Next, make the show dogs pass real Schutzhund trials, not the watered down show dog specials.
> 
> To go into the ring to be Sieger make the dogs go to a specific Schutzhund III trial for their region, field, helper and judge selected by a region or the national club.
> 
> Next, get rid of Schutzhund II and have a new Schutzhund III with the old courage test, and have
> the dog released when the helper is 60 yards away. But do the courage test twice, and have a call off one one or the other, on the judge's signal or by draw for the trial.
> 
> Next, stop the pussification, call it Schutzhund and leave IPO for the play dogs.


Jim, I believe that your ideas are the total opposite of mine. I think that we have already gone the route of more and different regulations, rules and road blocks and that is exactly what has screwed up the dogs in the first place. 

Think about it realistically. You make new rules and test and people will find ways around them. Judges and administrators will bend to the pressure. It's just human nature. And we will be in the same position we are now. 

Also I have seen in several of your post in admiration of the KNPV and NVBK system and you seem to believe that the strength of those systems comes from the trials. I believe that the biggest strengths of those systems is the fact that they have almost no breeding regulations. Breeders are free to select from any dog in the world that they want to breed. They can breed to the dog that has a floppy ear. They can breed to the pet bitch that has never been trialed. They can breed to dogs that doesn't have the right paperwork. This is a system that works.

The German system has always struck me as odd. You take your dog that you have raised for the last 2 or three years. You have brought this dog up from a pup. You did all of the training. You live with the dog and have witnessed him in zillion different situations. Then you take the dog to a breed test where some guy, that you don't know from Adam, looks at your dog for a 10 minute period. And that one snapshot in time saddles your dog with his binding assessment for the rest of his life. Am I the only one that sees how screwed up that is? I think that the owner should have at least some input since they know the dog better than anyone.

All your idea does is roll the clock back 30 years. OK then what? How do you stop the same things from happening all over again? I think that rolling the rules back 30 years will do very little anyway because you can't rollback the training. The training today is light years beyond where it was 30 years ago. Any attempts to make it harder may quickly be mitigated by training, not necessarily by breeding better dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Engel said:


> Lou,
> Are there report logs where you can read descriptions of the engagements for a particular dog? I am sure there are many terrifying encounters every day, and many cops, fisherman and soldiers telling war stories that get better with every telling.


Not that I know of Jim. Many departments set up a system where details of those incidents are not available. The general descriptions can be obtained under FOIA requests but they often make the detailed reports part of the dog's "personnel packet" and they are not available except under subpoena, during court cases. This is done because those reports can contain confidential information as to tactics and such. 



Jim Engel said:


> I think what this points out is that a major problem in America is that there is very little interaction and communication between American breeders and trainers and police handlers and trainers..


I don't know that very much communication between breeders and police trainers is necessary. As long as a dog passes my tests for him, I don't care about his bloodlines. There are poor attitudes on both sides but the main reason for the split between the police trainers and breeders is that the breeders went one way, producing dogs that were prey and defense monsters, that excel in sports, when the police need something that's quite different. It's less common today in Germany to find a GSD working the street, either in patrol or in detector work, where just a few decades back, that's just about all you'd see. I'd love to work with breeders but they aren't interested in listening to what we need. Instead they try to tell us what we need when they have neither the knowledge nor the experience to know. I'd love for the GSD to come back to what it was, I prefer them over other breeds, but the breeders aren't interested. Since breeders deal with puppies, and few police departments are going to raise a PSD prospect from a puppy, there's too much risk involved, and not enough payoff, there's not much of a benefit to interacting with them. 



Jim Engel said:


> The police dog trial should be designed to produce as high a correlation between passing the trial and successful service; and to do this there needs to be real communication between actual police officers, police administrators and the people involved in breeding and amateur training.


Today few, if any certs/trials do this. They are designed to ensure minimum standards and for many, they exist for liability purposes and little else. Quite a few handlers clean up their dogs for their cert and then "dirty them up" for the street. I think this shows a lack of understanding of why control and an out are necessary. Many handlers walk a tightrope between control and quality of their bite, and lean towards the latter. They don't realize that you don't have to give up one to get the other. 



Jim Engel said:


> This is lacking in America, and as long as we are dependent on Europeans we ill always be sucking on the last tit.


The only thing that we need from the Europeans is a pool of dogs to choose from. The breeders do what they do for the sport world and what they think is necessary there. There's far more money there, than in breeding or selling dogs for LE.


----------



## Jim Engel

Christopher,
I am not sure where we disagree. My answer was sort of in the context of "what should the German Shepherd people do" and I stand by that. I mean by this if you are going to have a Schutzhund trial as a breeding requirement, as they do, then you need to make it rigorous. If people can "decide for themselves" then everybody will find a way to be fine.

Stepping back I think the trial system should

1. Have as much real police input and participation as possible.
2. Be breed agnostic, that is, any dog who can do the work can enter.
3. Have zero input from the "authorities" in any particular breed.
4. Have absolutely no breed influence on judge selection.
5. Never let a breed organization run trials in which they can
select their own special judges.

If that sound a lot like KNPV then I guess you know where my real
priorities are.

Then if a breed wants to make it a requirement fine, but you must not have
people adjusting it to "fit the elite heritage" of some particular breed.


----------



## Jim Engel

In reply to Bob Scott about "balanced dogs."

If Balanced means a dog with the potential for real aggression and fighting drive balanced by a character that good police trainer/handler situation can bring under control and be neutral in non
aggressive situations, fine.

But if "balanced" means good for seeing eye dogs, police dogs, casual family pets, hospital visit dogs, dancing with dogs contests then for me it's a plan for crap, you might just as well get a nice cheap dog from the pound.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Test post (ignore)

(Testing page numbers)


----------



## Connie Sutherland

second test post


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_OK, back to thread; last post before test was_


Jim Engel said:


> In reply to Bob Scott about "balanced dogs."
> 
> If Balanced means a dog with the potential for real aggression and fighting drive balanced by a character that good police trainer/handler situation can bring under control and be neutral in non
> aggressive situations, fine.
> 
> But if "balanced" means good for seeing eye dogs, police dogs, casual family pets, hospital visit dogs, dancing with dogs contests then for me it's a plan for crap, you might just as well get a nice cheap dog from the pound.


----------



## Bob Scott

Jim I'd have to say BOTH.

You added 
"balanced by a character that good police trainer/handler situation can bring under control and be neutral in non aggressive situations, fine:.

I have no problem with that but you second comment is a bit confusing.
_ 
"But if "balanced" means good for seeing eye dogs, police dogs, casual family pets, hospital visit dogs, dancing with dogs contests then for me it's a plan for crap, you might just as well get a nice cheap dog from the pound." 

Do you really believe that seeing eye dogs and police dogs can easily be found in the pound? 

_


----------



## Jim Engel

Bob Scott said:


> Jim I'd have to say BOTH.
> 
> You added
> "balanced by a character that good police trainer/handler situation can bring under control and be neutral in nonaggressive situations, fine:.
> 
> I have no problem with that but you second comment is a bit confusing.
> _
> "But if "balanced" means good for seeing eye dogs, police dogs, casual family pets, hospital visit dogs, dancing with dogs contests then for me it's a plan for crap, you might just as well get a nice cheap dog from the pound."
> 
> Do you really believe that seeing eye dogs and police dogs can easily be found in the pound?
> 
> _


OK, that was not entirely a good comparison. But I do believe that it is difficult and unproductive to try and breed for both in one breed. Read the Fortune Fields book and note that the seeing eye people have given up the German Shepherd.

So if "balanced breeding" means trying to predictably produce a high proportion of good police dogs and good seeing eye dogs in the same breed then it is a bad idea in the sense that it will very seriously compromise both objectives. 

My core belief is that a breed should be bred absolutely for the core purpose. Retrievers for fetching ducks, pointers for indicating birds, German Shepherds or Malinois for Police work.

That's what it means to have a breed.

At the risk of being found guilty of one more smart ass remark "Dogs bred to be good for everything wind up being good for nothing."


----------



## Edward Egan

I think it's a fantasy to expect every pup from a given litter to be PSD quality. So those that don't make the cut are possibly useful in other less demanding venue's. What the problem with that?


----------



## Bob Scott

Jim, Would you agree that in a given litter they all wont be at the top of the heap for police work? Those that don't are where the rest of the family pets, therapy dogs, etc come from. The problem then arises of how to control those. That's next to impossible and the root of ALL breeding problems. 
I don't believe that von Stephnitz's goal was to breed just for that over the top dog in any form. A good herding GSD should have all the characteristics to be whatever is asked of it. Herder, farm dog, protector and yes, even a family friendly dog. That doesn't mean it has to look for, enjoy or even like outside attention. That's where I see your "Character that can be brought under control and be neutral in a non aggressive situation" comes to play.


----------



## Jim Engel

Bob and Edward,
Absolutely, no litter can be expected to produce top patrol dog candidates.

Yes, absolutely, there are many roles a GSD, Malininois, Bouvier can fulfill
such as companion, search dog, single purpose detection dog, and so forth.

Many people seeking a companion are perfectly capable of dealing with
a dog who could otherwise be a perfectly good patrol dog.

What I strenuously object to is the idea that "Fluffy is such a good obedience
competitor that it is OK to breed her."

But if Fluffy is not gun sure, not sufficient in protection drive etc then
breeding her diminishes the breed.

People will say it is elitist, and I say so be it.


----------



## Randy Allen

Shrug,
Then don't breed Fluffy Jim. That's your prerogative.

But you wouldn't and can't take the right away from Mr. & Mrs. J. Doe to bred their perfectly good sofa cushion. They think it's the perfect animal.
It's the same right you enjoy to go out and breed whatever you envission as the ideal animal.

That your vission may come closer to mine than the J. Does of the world doen't make a wit of difference.
They think it's just perfect.


----------



## Pete Stevens

If it wasn't for K9 sports like IPO, KNPV, etc., we wouldn't have dogs to use for law enforcement. I've seen some dogs in various sporting clubs that I believe would make good patrol dogs. On the other hand, I've seen some sport dogs that have no business being on the training field let alone the street. As a person who has trained both in sport and police work and had "real" deployments, a great sport dog will usually do well on the street. I tell people I take a perfectly good titled dog and screw it up for police work. Do I really care about pretty OB for a patrol dog? Not really, I'll take good OB and the ability to be a solid dog that will go under some trailer in the the middle of the night and drag out the bad guy just because I told him to. I have learned a lot from the sport world about bite work and keeping dogs in drive. I've probably learned more about tracking from civilian sports than anything else. Keep training those sport dogs people, we need the dogs!


----------



## Jim Engel

Pete Stevens said:


> If it wasn't for K9 sports like IPO, KNPV, etc., we wouldn't have dogs to use for law enforcement. I've seen some dogs in various sporting clubs that I believe would make good patrol dogs. On the other hand, I've seen some sport dogs that have no business being on the training field let alone the street. As a person who has trained both in sport and police work and had "real" deployments, a great sport dog will usually do well on the street. I tell people I take a perfectly good titled dog and screw it up for police work. Do I really care about pretty OB for a patrol dog? Not really, I'll take good OB and the ability to be a solid dog that will go under some trailer in the the middle of the night and drag out the bad guy just because I told him to. I have learned a lot from the sport world about bite work and keeping dogs in drive. I've probably learned more about tracking from civilian sports than anything else. Keep training those sport dogs people, we need the dogs!


Pete, yes, the system has worked pretty well for a century, and it is largely these working trials that have produced the dogs of today. The problem I see is the watering down of expectations and the tendency to lower standards, as in the removal of the attack on the handler, instead of breeding better dogs.

The most important thing in my opinion is that we encourage what you are practicing, that is, the active cooperation and mutual support among police handlers and civilian breeders and trainers. If this becomes widespread enough, eventually some of these police trainers are going to move up into leadership roles and be truly supportive canine programs.


----------



## Jim Engel

Randy Allen said:


> Shrug,
> Then don't breed Fluffy Jim. That's your prerogative.
> 
> But you wouldn't and can't take the right away from Mr. & Mrs. J. Doe to bred their perfectly good sofa cushion. They think it's the perfect animal.
> It's the same right you enjoy to go out and breed whatever you envission as the ideal animal.
> 
> That your vission may come closer to mine than the J. Does of the world doen't make a wit of difference.
> They think it's just perfect.


Yes, they have the right to breed whatever they want.

But others have the right to set standards and deny
registration to those who do not meet them.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Jim Engel said:


> But others have the right to set standards and deny
> registration to those who do not meet them.


That's exactly the system that has brought us to where we are today. 


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## David Frost

Jim Engel said:


> The problem I see is the watering down of expectations and the tendency to lower standards, as in the removal of the attack on the handler, instead of breeding better dogs.
> 
> The most important thing in my opinion is that we encourage what you are practicing, that is, the active cooperation and mutual support among police handlers and civilian breeders and trainers. If this becomes widespread enough, eventually some of these police trainers are going to move up into leadership roles and be truly supportive canine programs.



Where do you see the tendency to lower the standards on the attack of the handler? Is that a move by a POST Commission or one (or more) of the certification associations? I've never seen that discussed among any police trainers. 

I also don't understand your comment of; "eventually some of these police trainers are going to move up into leadership roles and be truly supportive canine programs." Since the "canine program" is my job, how could I be more supportive. I've said many times on this and other forums (and usually receive snide remarks afterward) breeding doesn't really matter to most police trainers. It's the dog we are buying that matters. One area of breeding and is some respects training, that isn't necessarily included in this discussion, are some of the civilian breeders and trainers that have emerged over the years. Prior to 9/11 there were a few breeders that were quite successful catering primarily to law enforcement and DOD. Post 9/11 some of those kennels became quite large and provided a greater number. The vast majority of their stock did come from Europe and while they certainly looked for healthy stock, their primary concern was producing usable dogs. Kind of like the dairy business. They may produce healthy bullocks, but they are useless to the dairy business. In the same respect, there is more to having healthy dogs. While it may (albeit a large one at the moment) niche market, there are breeder vendors that supply a significant number of working dogs to DOD and some law enforcement. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Engel

David,
I see a tendency to lower standards on the attack on the handler because
they removed it from the Schutzhund trial when too many dogs began
to fail it. Virtually all patrol dogs exist because breeding selection has
created them through the trial systems such as KNPV and Schutzhund.

Breeding matters to all police trainers, whether they can connect the
dots or not; it is long term breeding selection that makes the dogs useful
for this work. Sure you select the dog according to how it performs and
what you see; and yes buying a dog just because of a pedigree is foolish
for police work and sport. But the breeder needs to look deeper, for he
needs breeding stock where there is a reason for the quality of the dog,
not the occasional good dog that pops up by random chance.

There may be exceptions, but the breeder vendors are selling imports
or pups out of titled and certified imports, but not reproducing their
own lines. Were it not for continual imports they would either learn
to do it themselves or would go out of business. 

The police administration thing was worded awkwardly, my reference
was to the sort of situation you have in Holland, where the president
and high officers of the KNPV are also high level police department
administrators. This means there is real understanding and cooperation
on all levels, this is why we pay increasing prices for dogs coming out
of this program.


----------



## Jim Engel

*Military dog procurement*

David, 
I know you had a long career at Lakland training military dogs
prior to your police service. I am not sure of what is going
on, but until recently the Military was so concerned about
breeding that they were conducting their own program.
I think Stewart Hillard had a lot to do with this program.

*The DOD Military Working Dog Program*


 The 341st Training Squadron is aggressively looking to expand its sources of stateside dogs for entry into the Department of Defense Military Working Dog Training and Breeding Programs. As we reach out to people in the community for assistance with filling our needs we would like to provide you some information about our program. The 341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas is home to the Department of Defense Military Working Dog (MWD) Program. The squadron is responsible for training Military Working Dogs to detect drugs and bombs, and perform patrol functions in support of worldwide missions. Additionally, the squadron is responsible for the training of all handlers, kennelmasters and specialized mission function dog teams for the DoD. The unit also supports the Transportation Security Administration canine detection program with joint use training facilities and procurement of their working dogs. 
The squadron also boasts a robust logistics mission and is responsible for the procurement of all dogs for the DoD and TSA as well as the kenneling and care of an average of 800 dogs daily. Veterinary care for all dogs entering the program is provided by the US Army Veterinary Corps at a brand new, $13 million dollar state of the art veterinary hospital. 
In 2005, the squadron began an operational breeding mission to help fulfill the DoD’s need for working dogs. The dog of choice, the Belgian Malinois, is whelped, reared, and trained at Lackland Air Force Base and then sent off to field units. The program, in its third operational year is “ramping up” and is set to begin aggressively seeking its goal of providing 100 dogs per year for the DoD. The life cycle of a puppy bred and whelped by the Breeding Program looks like this; Age 0 to 9 weeks of age, the puppies are whelped at our whelping kennel and are cared for by our dedicated whelping care attendants. The puppies are handled using the US Army Bio-Sensor module, socialized to persons at appropriate 


Complete article:
http://www.napwda.com/tips/index.phtml?id=54


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Keith Jenkins said:


> Let's be realistic. Regardless of venue until the teeth actually meet the flesh under a real life situation and not suit or sleeve, all the training in the world proves nothing. You may hope it does but until that first live bite it's speculation.


 The same could be said for boxing, martial arts, or anything...
The training IS the first step. Proofing under real conditions isn't always the "test" as other conditions may impact it as well. It does set some standard for training and continued work in the venue you use...


----------



## Bob Scott

Jim Engel said:


> Bob and Edward,
> Absolutely, no litter can be expected to produce top patrol dog candidates.
> 
> Yes, absolutely, there are many roles a GSD, Malininois, Bouvier can fulfill
> such as companion, search dog, single purpose detection dog, and so forth.
> 
> Many people seeking a companion are perfectly capable of dealing with
> a dog who could otherwise be a perfectly good patrol dog.
> 
> What I strenuously object to is the idea that "Fluffy is such a good obedience
> competitor that it is OK to breed her."
> 
> But if Fluffy is not gun sure, not sufficient in protection drive etc then
> breeding her diminishes the breed.
> 
> People will say it is elitist, and I say so be it.





100% agreement with that!


----------



## David Frost

Jim says: "I see a tendency to lower standards on the attack on the handler because they removed it from the Schutzhund trial when too many dogs beganto fail it."

I don't know how you connect that to police service dogs. USPCA, NAPWDA, IPWDA and others have no intention of changing or eliminating the requirement for the dog to protect the handler. That's a real streatch. DOD first tried a breeding program in the late 60's that ran until 1972 or so. It was conducted at the Land Warfare Laboratory in Maryland. DOD breeding isnt anything new. The purpose was to provide trainable dogs, they didn't care about registrations, pretitle dogs etc. They were selecting stock based on that stocks performance, not the performance of its' ancestors. At any rate, while they may not admit it, the percentage of usable dogs is probably around 50%. Auburn is also trying their own breeding program, yet both DOD and Auburn are buying about anything that meets their requirements, regardless of heritage. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker

david...

you DO know that dogs that bite the hands are nervy and should be put down right???


----------



## Bob Scott

Christopher Smith said:


> That's exactly the system that has brought us to where we are today.
> 
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk



I would agree with that. The SV has breed wardens. The AKC has judges. That still boils down to a judgement call and the judgement is biased towards the show dog in both instances. 
The breeders still have the final responsibility to the breed whatever breed it may be.


----------



## Denise Gatlin

David Frost said:


> Jim says: ". Auburn is also trying their own breeding program, yet both DOD and Auburn are buying about anything that meets their requirements, regardless of heritage.
> 
> DFrost


 
So DOD has not been affected by fed budget cuts? This is good to know about both DOD and Auburn as I'm wanting to test these 4 Dutch/GSD pups (7 mos old) I have been training. Had thought about donating them to LE but with some of the LE handlers I have trained with recently in S&R, they seem to want more of a family pet and these pups wont fit that. :-\"


----------



## Randy Allen

I guess I don't get what you're railing about Jim.

The push and pull of the inner politics within an individual orginazation? It that it?

I'm not sure that that's a worth while battle, that fight was been going on from the day the S.V. was formed. Eh, a little over a hundred years now is it?

Wasn't there a heavy weight the broke from the SV some years ago? Tried to start his own program somewhat closer toward to some real (read harder)tests? 
How far did he get with that? And I repeat he was a heavy weight within the inner circle.

You don't think FCI titles are worth squat or they're the best thing after AKC then don't mess about with them when you're looking for a dog. Stick with the org.'s that you feel are a good test toward what you're looking for.

If you want to rally enough people to change the rules of those FCI org's, give me and everyone else the plan. 
I'll get on board.


For my part it's a one on one basis. Someone admires one of my dogs and wants one. I do my best to describe exactly where we started from, then go on to the dedication and time ( and on going time) it takes to realize the wonderful animal they think is the perfect dog in front of them.

I think that for the good of the breed though Cpt.von Stephanitz's warning about not getting to far away from the well balanced herding/guardian dog he worked so hard to create should be heeded.


----------



## David Frost

Denise Gatlin said:


> So DOD has not been affected by fed budget cuts? This is good to know about both DOD and Auburn as I'm wanting to test these 4 Dutch/GSD pups (7 mos old) I have been training. Had thought about donating them to LE but with some of the LE handlers I have trained with recently in S&R, they seem to want more of a family pet and these pups wont fit that. :-\"


I'm sure DOD is facing budget cuts as well. However they are still buying 800 or better, dogs a year. In addition to what the military is buying you have quite a few dogs deployed by private contractors both stateside and overseas. Those dogs are all coming from somewhere. A lot of them are single purpose detector, but still a lot of dogs.

DFrost


----------



## Denise Gatlin

David Frost said:


> I'm sure DOD is facing budget cuts as well. However they are still buying 800 or better, dogs a year. In addition to what the military is buying you have quite a few dogs deployed by private contractors both stateside and overseas. Those dogs are all coming from somewhere. A lot of them are single purpose detector, but still a lot of dogs.
> 
> DFrost


Thank you very much, Mr. Frost, for the info. I am just trying to make preparation in advance, realizing they have to be 12-36 mos old but have dropped an email to Lackland. Meanwhile, I am having the time of my life with these 4!


----------



## Steve Estrada

Great thread although I don't see a solution here. I specialize in part with aggressive dogs that have full tendency to bite. Would I breed them for that? No! Yet the DSH I seek to breed better be civil or it won't be part of my stock. But what I breed from must be dominant & that's where I see the values we are discussing come from. No you won't get what you want every time but you'll get a percentage as has been discussed before. Breeding is somewhat subjective no matter what rules or Org. is in place. Mike Suttle breeds for this type I'd like to hear his two cents plus Stefan has seen what kind of stock the best comes from...


----------



## Debbie Skinner

As a breeder, I've found that "_watching my own ass_" motto works best.. Gives me much more time to focus on my breeding program, which is the only thing I have control of anyways. 

I am against breed surveys and confirmations in order to breed a dog. Also, not in favor of judges or registries telling me what I can and cannot breed. Back when I started in Beaucerons in the early 1990s I was for breed surveys as I wanted to to be _just like France._ I've learned a lot about working dogs since then and have done a 180 in my way of thinking. It's a pity the Beauceron did not have it's version of NVBK to save it as a working dog. Working genetics tossed in the garbage for a white spot or too tall or too fluffy, minus a tooth or 2,....

The FCI - NVBK feud continues to be an obstacle when breeding working Malinois. Thank you, NVBK and KNPV for being there for the Malinois. The Malinois is where it is today because of its strong foundation of breeders that organized. They had no breed restrictions and the breeders were left alone.


----------



## Jim Engel

Debbie Skinner said:


> As a breeder, I've found that "_watching my own ass_" motto works best.. Gives me much more time to focus on my breeding program, which is the only thing I have control of anyways.
> 
> I am against breed surveys and confirmations in order to breed a dog. Also, not in favor of judges or registries telling me what I can and cannot breed. Back when I started in Beaucerons in the early 1990s I was for breed surveys as I wanted to to be _just like France._ I've learned a lot about working dogs since then and have done a 180 in my way of thinking. It's a pity the Beauceron did not have it's version of NVBK to save it as a working dog. Working genetics tossed in the garbage for a white spot or too tall or too fluffy, minus a tooth or 2,....
> 
> The FCI - NVBK feud continues to be an obstacle when breeding working Malinois. Thank you, NVBK and KNPV for being there for the Malinois. The Malinois is where it is today because of its strong foundation of breeders that organized. They had no breed restrictions and the breeders were left alone.


Debbie,
It is interesting that while the "selection" process is still a millstone around the
necks of the other breeds in France, a Malinois with a title automatically qualifies.


----------



## mike suttle

Over the last couple days I have sat down and started typing my thoughts on this topic, but decided to just delete it because it was way too long. I had so much to say that I couldn't reduce it into one paragraph so people would take the time to read it.
I will just say that the best option for breeders is to breed for the traits that they prefer and let other breeders do the same.
I know what I believe to be a good dog that is suitable for real police work, but perhaps others would not agree with me on this. So here, we breed for what we like, and we have established a client list of agencies who buy from us because that is also the type of dog they prefer as well. 
Many people have differing opinions about what an ideal dog is, that will never change.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Jim Engel said:


> Debbie,
> It is interesting that while the "selection" process is still a millstone around the
> necks of the other breeds in France, a Malinois with a title automatically qualifies.


Maybe it has changed now in France..? This is new?

I remember when I was importing a lot before 9/11 the working Mals had to be confirmed. I remember a nice Dusty son ..I think his name was Justy after his sire. He was big, powerful nice FRIII, but had an underbite and wasn't confirmed (breedable). 

There was a big "ta do" when the SCC finally made an exception and confirmed "Jaguar" Iqua (FRIII Selectif Beauce) who had an under-bite. 

There were certain judges to go to get working dogs (i.e. the ugly working dogs..sigh) confirmed back then as well. So maybe they are seeing the light after throwing away so many dogs.

So are you sure in France a working title gives a Malinois automatic confirmation # for breeding?


----------



## Debbie Skinner

mike suttle said:


> Over the last couple days I have sat down and started typing my thoughts on this topic, but decided to just delete it because it was way too long. I had so much to say that I couldn't reduce it into one paragraph so people would take the time to read it.
> I will just say that the best option for breeders is to breed for the traits that they prefer and let other breeders do the same.
> I know what I believe to be a good dog that is suitable for real police work, but perhaps others would not agree with me on this. So here, we breed for what we like, and we have established a client list of agencies who buy from us because that is also the type of dog they prefer as well.
> Many people have differing opinions about what an ideal dog is, that will never change.


Deja vu reading what you just posted. No reason to try to defend as a breeder why we breed the dogs we do. Just got to breed what you want to live and work with.


----------



## Jim Engel

Debbie Skinner said:


> Maybe it has changed now in France..? This is new?
> 
> I remember when I was importing a lot before 9/11 the working Mals had to be confirmed. I remember a nice Dusty son ..I think his name was Justy after his sire. He was big, powerful nice FRIII, but had an underbite and wasn't confirmed (breedable).
> 
> There was a big "ta do" when the SCC finally made an exception and confirmed "Jaguar" Iqua (FRIII Selectif Beauce) who had an under-bite.
> 
> There were certain judges to go to get working dogs (i.e. the ugly working dogs..sigh) confirmed back then as well. So maybe they are seeing the light after throwing away so many dogs.
> 
> So are you sure in France a working title gives a Malinois automatic confirmation # for breeding?


This is my strong recollection from a series of E Mails back and forth with Michel Hasbrouck a couple of years ago, here I quote him to some extent:

http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch7.pdf

Perhaps I should go over the old correspondence and perhaps check with him again. What do the people you know in France say ?

The problem in the Bouvier world is that the breeders, show breeders, have very tight control
over who can do the selections, and they use it to eliminate potential competition. Being French they are sure all good things come from France, but the best Bouviers are from KNPV lines. Apparently a dog registered in Belgium or Holland is good to go, and several high placing French Ring Bouviers were bred in Belgium out of KNPV lines and then imported.

The French breeders in their hearts would rather see all Bouviers fail than their own dogs fall behind.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Randy Allen said:


> I guess I don't get what you're railing about Jim.
> 
> The push and pull of the inner politics within an individual orginazation? It that it?
> 
> I'm not sure that that's a worth while battle, that fight was been going on from the day the S.V. was formed. Eh, a little over a hundred years now is it?
> 
> Wasn't there a heavy weight the broke from the SV some years ago? Tried to start his own program somewhat closer toward to some real (read harder)tests?
> How far did he get with that? And I repeat he was a heavy weight within the inner circle.
> 
> You don't think FCI titles are worth squat or they're the best thing after AKC then don't mess about with them when you're looking for a dog. Stick with the org.'s that you feel are a good test toward what you're looking for.
> 
> If you want to rally enough people to change the rules of those FCI org's, give me and everyone else the plan.
> I'll get on board.
> 
> 
> For my part it's a one on one basis. Someone admires one of my dogs and wants one. I do my best to describe exactly where we started from, then go on to the dedication and time ( and on going time) it takes to realize the wonderful animal they think is the perfect dog in front of them.
> 
> I think that for the good of the breed though Cpt.von Stephanitz's warning about not getting to far away from the well balanced herding/guardian dog he worked so hard to create should be heeded.


You're absolutely right about von Stepahanitz. He did not create the GSD because the flock work was disappearing. It was not a breed with the core purpose as the PSD, either. His vision was that bred for balance, it is a breed that can fulfill many purposes, PSD being one of them. Lose the ability for stock work and you lose the breed. He was quite emphatic that the most noble vocation for the German Shepherd Dog was that with the flocks and he specified sheep for that matter. 

Terrasita


----------



## Steve Burger

Christopher Smith said:


> The German system has always struck me as odd. You take your dog that you have raised for the last 2 or three years. You have brought this dog up from a pup. You did all of the training. You live with the dog and have witnessed him in zillion different situations. Then you take the dog to a breed test where some guy, that you don't know from Adam, looks at your dog for a 10 minute period. And that one snapshot in time saddles your dog with his binding assessment for the rest of his life. Am I the only one that sees how screwed up that is? I think that the owner should have at least some input since they know the dog better than anyone.


I see both sides of this. On one hand some objectivity from an outside source is good. On the other hand at least in my world (Dobermann) the "breed survey (ZTP)".."judge" is generally some jackass show person, who wouldn't know a working dog if they saw one. Correct me if I am wrong but is not this pretty much the same with the GSD breed survey?


----------



## Jim Engel

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You're absolutely right about von Stepahanitz. He did not create the GSD because the flock work was disappearing. It was not a breed with the core purpose as the PSD, either. His vision was that bred for balance, it is a breed that can fulfill many purposes, PSD being one of them. Lose the ability for stock work and you lose the breed. He was quite emphatic that the most noble vocation for the German Shepherd Dog was that with the flocks and he specified sheep for that matter.
> 
> Terrasita


Mostly emotional nonsense here. Read the von Stephenitz book and look at what he actually did.
Read this:
http://www.angelplace.net/doc/GarrettBook.pdf
and this:
http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch8.pdf

Everybody says von Stephenitz this and von Stephenitx that.
The actual fact behind the creation of all of these police breeds
is that the herding function was disappearing.

In Belgium and Holland it was very quick and complete, and there
was almost not herding beyond about 1900.

In the more remote parts of Germany it persisted, and
they were taking breeding stock out of the fields until
well into the thirties, as Garrett in the above reference describes.

But this was very much a get while the getting is good before
they were all gone, al forward looking ongoing selection
requirements were focused on tests, the original police
test and the Schutzhund trial. Yes herding HGH titles are
still accepted, as they should be, but this is a way of life
gone for a century in the home of the Malinois and extremely
marginal in Germany.

Nice doggies good for so many nice feel good things is a
plan for extinction in any serious working breed.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Jim Engel said:


> ... What do the people you know in France say ?...


The working Malinois in France in order to be bred have to pass before a judge, but the confirmation will be "easier". Still must have a breed survey. ](*,)


----------



## Edward Weiss

Getting back to the original premise of the thread Sport VS Real, there is an obvious paralel in the hunting dog community. As a breeders tool there are watered down AKC hunt tests, and at the other extreme intense competition to distinguish dogs has created unrealistic testing. 300 yard retrieves for Labs or field trial work requiring a pointer to race at speed unsustainable in real hunting situations. 
Dogs bred to be top flight competitors were often so over the top that there practical use was lost .
Again new organiztions sprang up ...check out NAVDA and its testing thesis which then leads to a breeding direction. 
The tests are tests based on the maturity and experience of the dog ,pup to to accomplished hunter,rather than contests judged on ephemeral concepts such attitude in attentive heeling, while giving a pass on a weak grip.

*"To be truly meaningful, tests for versatile hunting dogs must meet certain criteria. They must be conducted in an environment which reflects actual hunting conditions and situations. They must test the important qualities of a good versatile dog. Judges must be knowledgeable, consistent and objective. All testing and evaluation is to be within the context of judging dogs as useful, productive hunting companions. NAVHDA tests have been designed with these requirements in mind. In addition, our record keeping provides an accurate, complete performance evaluation on each dog tested "*


----------



## Tim Connell

Pete Stevens said:


> If it wasn't for K9 sports like IPO, KNPV, etc., we wouldn't have dogs to use for law enforcement. I've seen some dogs in various sporting clubs that I believe would make good patrol dogs. On the other hand, I've seen some sport dogs that have no business being on the training field let alone the street. As a person who has trained both in sport and police work and had "real" deployments, a great sport dog will usually do well on the street. I tell people I take a perfectly good titled dog and screw it up for police work. Do I really care about pretty OB for a patrol dog? Not really, I'll take good OB and the ability to be a solid dog that will go under some trailer in the the middle of the night and drag out the bad guy just because I told him to. I have learned a lot from the sport world about bite work and keeping dogs in drive. I've probably learned more about tracking from civilian sports than anything else. Keep training those sport dogs people, we need the dogs!


 
Agreed, there is a lot to learn from various sport people, you are right on point there, Pete....and as for:

_"I've seen some dogs in various sporting clubs that I believe would make good patrol dogs. On the other hand, I've seen some sport dogs that have no business being on the training field let alone the street."_

Ain't that the truth. 


On a related topic: I have a friend with a very nice GSD he works in various venues...a sport guy told him that his dog has no business being a sport dog, since it's "too serious", and is a dog to take into an alley with you, not on a sport field...Hah! Guess it's a great dog then.  This dog is serious, but clear headed, and a great example of what a GSD should be. I'm guessing that apparently in that situation, it has become routine that some dogs with the personality of Lassie can squeak by, with a "helpful helper". I like seeing a hardcore dog go out and play at a sport, but take the sport "seriously". I think this is what it should be, and perhaps what it once was, "back in the day". Maybe I just look at it with a different set of eyes than some other people.

So that got me thinking:

Too bad more "sports" were not true tests of character, nerve, and working ability, rather than what some sports have become. Don't get me wrong, I have complete and utmost respect for anyone who perticipates in whatever venue or sport, and enjoys working their dog. Hell, one of these days I might go play in some of them too. With regard to true tests of a dog, I just wonder if something has been lost with expectations changing into routines that a dog that is not as strong as perhaps it should be can pass. I know it's "just a sport" to some, but it should also be a realistic tool for evaluation of the substance of a dog. 

This situation is also theoretical to some degree, since any time "competition" is involved, everyone wants to be a "winner", so the variables of "gaming" a scenario or exercise for "points", fair and objective judging and evaluation, politics of the organization, "who is friends with who" in that given week, and many other factors come into play. Just like anything that is expected to be pure and raw, things often fall apart when people and personalities start meddling with it.

Does anyone have any thoughts on some core expectations of what a true evaluation of what a dog/handler team should exhibit? Bear in mind that this is when we are talking about "real" dogs, and how would you define that "real" dog term? I have a few thoughts bouncing around, but would love to hear what all of you think...I feel there are some "core competencies" that any suitable, versatile "real" dog should possess, or be able to demonstrate...I'm wondering what your "laundry lists" look like...


Good thread.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

The working dog breeders that are trying to improve their breed must have access to ample good genetic material (dogs). For me it's not exclusively the FCI or show crowd with their confirmation rules.

I see the FCI breed survey system as removing working dogs from the gene pool through their enforcement of a beauty standard.

Also, I see the military and police removing dogs from the gene pool. I do not know of many departments that allow breeders to use one of their males for breeding. Lackland allow breeders to use any of their males? They need the good working dogs, but then the dogs disappear as far as breeding goes. They do not give back to the gene pool.

The sport dog owners make their dogs available for breeding..

sorry for not staying directly on topic.


----------



## Tim Connell

Edward Weiss said:


> Getting back to the original premise of the thread Sport VS Real, there is an obvious paralel in the hunting dog community. As a breeders tool there are watered down AKC hunt tests, and at the other extreme intense competition to distinguish dogs has created unrealistic testing. 300 yard retrieves for Labs or field trial work requiring a pointer to race at speed unsustainable in real hunting situations.
> Dogs bred to be top flight competitors were often so over the top that there practical use was lost .
> Again new organiztions sprang up ...check out NAVDA and its testing thesis which then leads to a breeding direction.
> The tests are tests based on the maturity and experience of the dog ,pup to to accomplished hunter,rather than contests judged on ephemeral concepts such attitude in attentive heeling, while giving a pass on a weak grip.
> 
> *"To be truly meaningful, tests for versatile hunting dogs must meet certain criteria. They must be conducted in an environment which reflects actual hunting conditions and situations. They must test the important qualities of a good versatile dog. Judges must be knowledgeable, consistent and objective. All testing and evaluation is to be within the context of judging dogs as useful, productive hunting companions. NAVHDA tests have been designed with these requirements in mind. In addition, our record keeping provides an accurate, complete performance evaluation on each dog tested "*


 
I like this concept.


----------



## Jim Engel

Debbie Skinner said:


> The working Malinois in France in order to be bred have to pass before a judge, but the confirmation will be "easier". Still must have a breed survey. ](*,)


So I am guessing they have one or several judges sympathetic to work
that will pass a dog unless there is some serious physical flaw if the dog
works well.

Do the dogs have to be "confirmed" or "conformed" (which is it) in order to
enter a French ring trial, or just for breeding ?

At any rate, the effect is the same, a dog with Ring III can be bred unless
there is some really serious physical limitation. That is, I am thinking something
like a bit 3/4 of an inch out or other serious problem should not be bred
anyway.


----------



## Randy Allen

This thread has always been on track Tim, no one has digressed in the least.

The discussion is about some concept of the division of sport or real. The only person that seems to be confused about what a real dog is, is the op. Because he apparently believes there is only one kind of real dog.
Going on, he also seems to believe that the GSD was developed for the sole purpose of manwork, not as a side line mind you, but as the sole purpose.
So far the op has opined that the natural herding/guardian dogs that were gathered to form the foundation of the GSD were simply for their work ethic. Nothing else, just their boundless work ethic. 
Well golly gee, nice to know the herding/guardians contributed something to the GSD.

While I have not read Cpt. von Stephanitz book, I've read enough of his quotes to note the value he placed on the herding group to carry on the foundation of the breed he loved and developed.

Now Jim, if you have actual quotes to refute any of my and others contentions made in this thread, then please give me/us the direct quotes of the founder. Not some reference to 300 plus pages of someone elses ruminations I don't have time to wade through and cross reference at the moment.


----------



## Steve Burger

Tim Connell said:


> On a related topic: I have a friend with a very nice GSD he works in various venues...a sport guy told him that his dog has no business being a sport dog, since it's "too serious", and is a dog to take into an alley with you, not on a sport field...Hah! Guess it's a great dog then.  This dog is serious, but clear headed, and a great example of what a GSD should be. I'm guessing that apparently in that situation, it has become routine that some dogs with the personality of Lassie can squeak by, with a "helpful helper". I like seeing a hardcore dog go out and play at a sport, but take the sport "seriously". I think this is what it should be, and perhaps what it once was, "back in the day". Maybe I just look at it with a different set of eyes than some other people..


 It varies on the training program, the trial environment and the selected judge. Let's face it, many IPO judges will pass practically any performance. Many judges are just not good enough to discern real serious dogs from marginal dogs in a trial situation. Many training programs create what you are describing with pure prey (play) training regimens. 




Tim Connell said:


> So that got me thinking:
> 
> Too bad more "sports" were not true tests of character, nerve, and working ability, rather than what some sports have become. Don't get me wrong, I have complete and utmost respect for anyone who perticipates in whatever venue or sport, and enjoys working their dog. Hell, one of these days I might go play in some of them too. With regard to true tests of a dog, I just wonder if something has been lost with expectations changing into routines that a dog that is not as strong as perhaps it should be can pass. I know it's "just a sport" to some, but it should also be a realistic tool for evaluation of the substance of a dog.
> 
> This situation is also theoretical to some degree, since any time "competition" is involved, everyone wants to be a "winner", so the variables of "gaming" a scenario or exercise for "points", fair and objective judging and evaluation, politics of the organization, "who is friends with who" in that given week, and many other factors come into play. Just like anything that is expected to be pure and raw, things often fall apart when people and personalities start meddling with it.
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on some core expectations of what a true evaluation of what a dog/handler team should exhibit? Bear in mind that this is when we are talking about "real" dogs, and how would you define that "real" dog term? I have a few thoughts bouncing around, but would love to hear what all of you think...I feel there are some "core competencies" that any suitable, versatile "real" dog should possess, or be able to demonstrate...I'm wondering what your "laundry lists" look like...
> 
> 
> Good thread.


 I think there is some validiity of the fact the sport of Schutzhund has changed somewhat over the years. Whether this is for "political correctness" or to make it easier or more appealing is up for debate. I believe the main problem however, is a culmination of several factors. One is training regimens that are really purely exercises in prey (as stated above). The other is many people, including judges do not follow the rules. I think the biggest problem, however, and what promotes most of the problems is judges that do not maintain the integrity of the evaluation process in trials. To restate, many are probably not good enough of an evaluator of temperament and drive to do a good job in judging. I see many examples of judges rewarding dogs with V ratings that do not deserve it. These kinds of judges are very active because too many clubs are looking for the easy way out. Rather than get good dogs and learn how to properly prepare them, they look for crappy/Santa Clause judges. Typcially these trial environments promote helpers that "help" the dogs and do not provide a good test of the dogs protection abilities. The problem is the working ability of the dogs suffer in the long run.


----------



## Jeff Wright

"In 2005, the squadron began an operational breeding mission to help fulfill the DoD’s need for working dogs. The dog of choice, the Belgian Malinois, is whelped, reared, and trained at Lackland Air Force Base and then sent off to field units. The program, in its third operational year is “ramping up” and is set to begin aggressively seeking its goal of providing 100 dogs per year for the DoD. The life cycle of a puppy bred and whelped by the Breeding Program looks like this; Age 0 to 9 weeks of age, the puppies are whelped at our whelping kennel and are cared for by our dedicated whelping care attendants. The puppies are handled using the US Army Bio-Sensor module, socialized to persons at appropriate "

It is hardly that strict of a protocol and upbringing.
In fact they ship the pups out at six weeks to volunteer families in the local area and have them returned at around 6 Months.
As can be imagined nearly none have working dog training in their background and I am sure that does not help ensure a top level candidate for selection.

"Our Puppy Program is looking for enthusiastic foster parents for DoD puppies"
http://www.lackland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090703-007.pdf

In my observation of small sample of the progeny, I would agree that the 50% number is probably about right.


----------



## Randy Allen

Steve,
I think that was what the heavy weight I alluded to earlier was on about.
Who was doing the judging, if I remember right he wanted judges that actually knew what they were looking at. There was some more stuff but I can't recall it all. Perhaps those that were more into SchH could enlighten us.


----------



## sam wilks

Im definitely not an expert but from what I have seen, you really cant classify any certain sport or trial as producing real dogs. I have seen sport dogs that are real and sport dogs that are fake. I have also seen the same in police dogs. I really think it boils down to two thing. Breeding and training. IPO gets a bad name because a lot of their dogs can be on a bite and you can just slip the sleeve and walk away. But IPO is not the only sport with dogs like that! There are a lot of police dogs that are the same way. Also you have to factor in that the dog that a k9 officer gets is probably going to stay the same because there are not a lot of k9 officers that have a lot of knowledge about training dogs. I know that will raise a lot of conflict but it is the truth. You have to remember that there is not always a lot of money in the budget for k9 units. In turn that doesnt leave a lot of room to maybe go to a seminar or bring someone in to work on issues. An example of this would be my department. The only experience our head trainer came with was a dog grooming resume. She is responsible for selecting dog, training dogs and, training there handlers. Where could she possibly have obtained the knowledge to do so? I am not a broker but I have sold a few dogs to police departments and one of the biggest questions is if the dog is social. Also they worry a lot about hunt drive and ball drive. I have actually took dogs to be tested and the only thing they have done is give him a prey bite on a soft sleeve. Im not saying thats all departments, but the oppurtunity is there to sell a dog that does not have that great of nerves and that in reality will not bite for real. JMO


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Jim Engel said:


> So I am guessing they have one or several judges sympathetic to work
> that will pass a dog unless there is some serious physical flaw if the dog
> works well.
> 
> Do the dogs have to be "confirmed" or "conformed" (which is it) in order to
> enter a French ring trial, or just for breeding ?
> 
> At any rate, the effect is the same, a dog with Ring III can be bred unless
> there is some really serious physical limitation. That is, I am thinking something
> like a bit 3/4 of an inch out or other serious problem should not be bred
> anyway.



Yes, some judges on their side (side of work). I googled quickly but didn't find the FCA Standard for the Malinois. I don't know if these judges ignore the DQs often or just serious faults. 

Confirme (fr) for breeding, the dog must go in front of a judge (but easier beauty judge) and be judged on how it physically meets the standard. Then the dog after passing receives the numbers after their initial registration # on the pedigree and pups from this dog can then be registered with SCC. Did I make a typo before? It's quite possible..confirmed vs conformed.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

"Confirme (fr) for breeding, the dog must go in front of a judge (but easier beauty judge) and be judged on how it physically meets the standard"

*Conform* ... the Wikipedia definition is pretty accurate:
_
"*Conformation *shows, also referred to as breed shows, are a kind of dog show in which a judge familiar with a specific dog breed evaluates individual purebred dogs for how well the dogs *conform* to the established breed type for their breed, as described in a breed's individual breed standard."_


----------



## Jim Engel

*Confirm and conform*

I have a huge mental block on this, get confused every damn time.

I think the right English is "Confirm" in the sense of "This dog is confirmed as suitable for breeding."

As in a *Confirmation* ceremony in many churches as a marking of becoming an adult or mature.

But if you ask me again tomorrow I will probably give the exact opposite answer.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Connie Sutherland said:


> "Confirme (fr) for breeding, the dog must go in front of a judge (but easier beauty judge) and be judged on how it physically meets the standard"
> 
> *Conform* ... the Wikipedia definition is pretty accurate:
> _
> "*Conformation *shows, also referred to as breed shows, are a kind of dog show in which a judge familiar with a specific dog breed evaluates individual purebred dogs for how well the dogs *conform* to the established breed type for their breed, as described in a breed's individual breed standard."_


Confirme is French for Confirm meaning to _verify_. I wasn't meaning conformation or conform. It is to confirm that the conformation of the dog confirms to the conformation standard.


----------



## maggie fraser

Debbie Skinner said:


> Confirme is French for Confirm meaning to _verify_. I wasn't meaning conformation or conform. It is to confirm that the conformation of the dog confirms to the conformation standard.


Whilst we're at it.... 

Apparently equine conformation (indeed the definition I was referring to in an earlier post), is different in meaning to that of dog 'conformation'.. 

*Equine conformation* evaluates the degree of correctness of a horse's bone structure, musculature, and its body proportions in relation to each other. Undesirable conformation can limit the ability to perform a specific task. Although there are several universal "faults," a horse's conformation is usually judged by what its intended use may be. Thus "form to function" is one of the first set of traits considered in judging conformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_conformation


----------



## Edward Egan

Debbie Skinner said:


> It is to confirm that the conformation of the dog confirms to the conformation standard.


Go ahead, say that fast 5 times!


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Edward Egan said:


> Go ahead, say that fast 5 times!


Hard enough to type it once correctly! Sorta like peter piper.. :-D


----------



## Harry Keely

my interpretation is sport is used as a building block, it starts with schutzhund jute equipment by usually 6 - 7 months old the dog hopely gos to the suit and never sees a schutzhund related issue again, by a year old to a year and a half we prefer the dog if its going to be used for "real" as its put here to be on hidden suit with many different clothings and materials over the suit in the mouth with muzzle work involved, there for theres not a fixation. That has worked very well over the years for us. doing it like this you can always present a sleeve back or suit back down the road if you choose to sell to sport, although have to say i be a tad worried without lots and lots of sleeve work before sending this dog on a long bite:-o just our method of madness, might not be for everybody else, the ones that dont conform to this we sell automatically to a sport / performance / single purpose / SAR home. I'm sure we have missed on a few of the slower maturing but thats how the cookie crumbles here, and I have to be able to close my eyes at night being married and having children myself.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Debbie Skinner said:


> Confirme is French for Confirm meaning to _verify_. I wasn't meaning conformation or conform. It is to confirm that the conformation of the dog confirms to the conformation standard.


Hey Deb that one succeeded in successfully crossing my eyes LOL


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Jim Engel said:


> Mostly emotional nonsense here. Read the von Stephenitz book and look at what he actually did.
> Read this:
> http://www.angelplace.net/doc/GarrettBook.pdf
> and this:
> http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch8.pdf
> 
> Everybody says von Stephenitz this and von Stephenitx that.
> The actual fact behind the creation of all of these police breeds
> is that the herding function was disappearing.
> 
> In Belgium and Holland it was very quick and complete, and there
> was almost not herding beyond about 1900.
> 
> In the more remote parts of Germany it persisted, and
> they were taking breeding stock out of the fields until
> well into the thirties, as Garrett in the above reference describes.
> 
> But this was very much a get while the getting is good before
> they were all gone, al forward looking ongoing selection
> requirements were focused on tests, the original police
> test and the Schutzhund trial. Yes herding HGH titles are
> still accepted, as they should be, but this is a way of life
> gone for a century in the home of the Malinois and extremely
> marginal in Germany.
> 
> Nice doggies good for so many nice feel good things is a
> plan for extinction in any serious working breed.


Not emotional nonsense. You are biased and have always been to the extent that you will resort to publishing misinformation. I have read von Stephanitz and can quote it chapter and verse with page numbers. You can play the game of the Bouvier as created as PSD even though your version is contrary to Chastel's and Bowle's description of the breed. You can't play that game in GSDs since there are several hundred pages as to its history and use. The breed was created before flock work faded. You act as if the breed creation came after the decrease in agriculture because if you could you would completely wipe out anything to do with the dogs/breeds other than police work or KNPV. The character and mental type for the breeds was in place waaayyyyy before the PSD function became solidified. von Stephanitz did his research amongst herders and was greatly impressed with the character that it demanded in the dogs; without which they could not have functioned in the military and PSD capacities. You have started with your own biased conclusions and you are on the search for support. If you were researching for facts you would know that von Stephanitz sought alternative occupations to keep the breed in demand and alive. Despite its ability to be employed in other capacities, he maintained that the most noble occupation for the GSD was his work with the flocks. 

Terrasita


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita if The Seed wrote a book about how he created his line of dogs, would you take it as gospel?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Christopher Smith said:


> Terrasita if The Seed wrote a book about how he created his line of dogs, would you take it as gospel?


Now, that's a loaded question. I don't take the the Bible as gospel either but if someone is going to use von Stephanitz as a source in terms of why and wht was created, do it justice. von Stephanitz is not without detractors and the breed creation battle between the Pollux society and other show dog organizations before the SV are documented. I think its interesting that the line that is used as an example [Kriminolpolezi] is a line that von Stephanitz cited as having temperament and structural faults. 

Terrasita


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Now, that's a loaded question. I don't take the the Bible as gospel either but if someone is going to use von Stephanitz as a source in terms of why and wht was created, do it justice. von Stephanitz is not without detractors and the breed creation battle between the Pollux society and other show dog organizations before the SV are documented. I think its interesting that the line that is used as an example [Kriminolpolezi] is a line that von Stephanitz cited as having temperament and structural faults.
> 
> Terrasita


Two wrongs don't make it right. Both of you are wasting time putting too much stock in what Stephanitz writes, IMO. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I don't think its wrong to consider von Stephanitz a source despite some of the criticisms I've come across. If you have other sources regarding the breed's history and creation, I'd love to know.

T


----------



## Steve Burger

Randy Allen said:


> Steve,
> I think that was what the heavy weight I alluded to earlier was on about.
> Who was doing the judging, if I remember right he wanted judges that actually knew what they were looking at. There was some more stuff but I can't recall it all. Perhaps those that were more into SchH could enlighten us.


 Are you referring to Helmut Raiser and RSV2000? Maybe those are the stated reasons, but then again maybe he was just disgruntled and reached a point where he did not play well with others. There are stories.


----------



## Steve Burger

Randy Allen said:


> Steve,
> I think that was what the heavy weight I alluded to earlier was on about.
> Who was doing the judging, if I remember right he wanted judges that actually knew what they were looking at. There was some more stuff but I can't recall it all. Perhaps those that were more into SchH could enlighten us.


 I am of course extremely biased, but I think one of the best interviews I have read that accurately portrays the situation is the interview with my training director. I posted it a few years ago on the articles thread. I continuously go back to it. Much of the integrity of judging is discussed in the interview. He also makes a statement that holding the line and retaining integrity means you don't get asked back in many places. I think that says a lot. Anyway here is a link to that interview...

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBul...nce-collins-2009-wusv-protection-judge-12641/


----------



## Erik Berg

Is it so hard to get a dog approved for it´s conformation in the german breedsurvey that many GSDs can´t be used in breedings and it becomes a problem? And how many EU countries are bound to the german breedsurvey anyway, you don´t need a conformationrating what I know in sweden,finland,norway. France and holland aren´t using the german system either when it comes to GSDs, or? 

Most workingdogs are companion/sportdogs, so how many in a given litter that could do policerwork is probably not a priority for breeders that are breeding for any given sport foremost. But I don´t think IPO is to blame more than other sports, it´s more about what type of IPO-dogs someone breeds on, if someone breeds to dogs that can´t function outside the competitionfield that´s the type of dogs that´s going to get produced I suppose. Afterall there are litters from IPO-dogs where more than 50% of the dogs works as PSDs.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Erik Berg said:


> Is it so hard to get a dog approved for it´s conformation in the german breedsurvey that many GSDs can´t be used in breedings and it becomes a problem? And how many EU countries are bound to the german breedsurvey anyway, you don´t need a conformationrating what I know in sweden,finland,norway. France and holland aren´t using the german system either when it comes to GSDs, or?
> ....


In France, the GSD has a French Confirme required (Breed Survey) in order to be used for breeding as do all the breeds in France. I've imported several FR titled GSDs over the years that could not confirme due to issues such as missing teeth. Very nice dogs. France's loss. Even in Belgium recently, friend breeders have said how they wished it was like America with more freedom to breed..problem there with the 2 registries and restrictions on breeders (FCI breeders not allowed to use NVBK dogs), dna being checked, etc. In France, breeders tell me the same thing. America has more freedom because we don't have the breed surveys and restrictions put on the breeders. 

It's sure that I've made it known in France since the 90s that I'll consider for myself, Beauceron that can't confirme that have character and working drives.

Berger Allemand (French Confirmation) description:
http://bergerallemand.pagesperso-orange.fr/infos/confirmation.htm
In French. Can use http://translate.google.com to translate page in language of choice.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

http://www.berger-allemand.org/standard/GRILLE_DU_BA.pdf


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Steve Burger said:


> I am of course extremely biased, but I think one of the best interviews I have read that accurately portrays the situation is the interview with my training director. I posted it a few years ago on the articles thread. I continuously go back to it. Much of the integrity of judging is discussed in the interview. He also makes a statement that holding the line and retaining integrity means you don't get asked back in many places. I think that says a lot. Anyway here is a link to that interview...
> 
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBul...nce-collins-2009-wusv-protection-judge-12641/


I joined a group of dog handlers a number of years ago and narrowly missed Lance Collins' visit. The chaps I trained with talked of him extremely well so much so that I was really envious. The way they talked about him, he fitted into their training group like a second skin. But, those were the days of "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche" and we didn't use food to reward - just one little pull on the" collar" when the dog was inattentive (unpleasant but not painful) followed by verbal praise when he showed the behaviour we wanted. We respected the dog. One of the chaps lost his nerve a week before a trial and packed his dog and shook it for not working properly. Our trainer chastised him and told him if he couldn't keep his nerves in check, he would be good to leave the dog sport.

These were tough but honest chaps with whom I was honoured to train with. On trial days we did our best and when it was over we sat together and drank together. Our trainer said "A good dog handler can "sup". This is no disrespect to the teetotallers amongst us in the forum!!!

Today, most handlers can't wait to leave straight after the ranking ceremony and the "get-togethers" are becoming increasingly rare. It's a pity - these "get-togethers" are the "salt and pepperr" of dog training, whichever type.


----------



## Randy Allen

Steve,
I can't remember the names or even many of the circulating rumors involving all the parties of the break-up (break-down?). All I really know is it was a very big snit leading to divorce by all.

It was big enough to have been someone of Helmut Raiser standing making the waves though.


Bye the way....Very good interview with Lance Collins.
Thanks for bring it back up for us late arrivals Steve.


----------



## Randy Allen

Christopher,
If the seed had written a book on how he created and cemented the traits of an entirely different breed of dog and more over the directions on how to maintain the core of HIS creation that so many admire and cherish. 
Then yeah, I'd pay attention and give it weight.

But as of yet to my (admitly limited knowledge) he's just another breeder of Airedales. 
Who knows though? In the end he may be hailed as the savior of the 'true' Airedale breed.
However he'll never be able to say he imagined and created an entirely new breed, much less one that if not now at one time, was wanted the world over.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Randy Allen said:


> Christopher,
> If the seed had written a book on how he created and cemented the traits of an entirely different breed of dog and more over the directions on how to maintain the core of HIS creation that so many admire and cherish.
> Then yeah, I'd pay attention and give it weight.
> 
> But as of yet to my (admitly limited knowledge) he's just another breeder of Airedales.
> Who knows though? In the end he may be hailed as the savior of the 'true' Airedale breed.
> However he'll never be able to say he imagined and created an entirely new breed, much less one that if not now at one time, was wanted the world over.


That is a fact Randy....I created no new breeds or anything of the such magnitude. I am just another airedale breeder, but, one that is trying to retrieve the breed from devolving further into one of the pussified breeds of today. Don't think it can really be done because in the end it isn't the dogs at all, they can be retrieved. The problem is people and the changing times. There is little access to real work for a dog today. Without it, there is simply no future for real working caliber dogs, just dogs playing games that can, somewhat, look like the real deal.


----------



## Randy Allen

Admitly, it does seem to be a an increasingly smaller circle.

It presents some very hard problems to over come for those that keep and admire the working lines.


----------



## Steve Burger

Gillian Schuler said:


> I joined a group of dog handlers a number of years ago and narrowly missed Lance Collins' visit. The chaps I trained with talked of him extremely well so much so that I was really envious. The way they talked about him, he fitted into their training group like a second skin. But, those were the days of "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche" and we didn't use food to reward - just one little pull on the" collar" when the dog was inattentive (unpleasant but not painful) followed by verbal praise when he showed the behaviour we wanted. We respected the dog. One of the chaps lost his nerve a week before a trial and packed his dog and shook it for not working properly. Our trainer chastised him and told him if he couldn't keep his nerves in check, he would be good to leave the dog sport.
> 
> These were tough but honest chaps with whom I was honoured to train with. On trial days we did our best and when it was over we sat together and drank together. Our trainer said "A good dog handler can "sup". This is no disrespect to the teetotallers amongst us in the forum!!!
> 
> Today, most handlers can't wait to leave straight after the ranking ceremony and the "get-togethers" are becoming increasingly rare. It's a pity - these "get-togethers" are the "salt and pepperr" of dog training, whichever type.


 I agree that what I have learned in the get togethers after training has been as beneficial as the training itself. I can say they still exist at the WCGSSC in Candada. I can say that Lance's methodology is much more refined than even when I joined his club 7 years ago. There is also much more finesse to the training as opposed to heavy handedness. However when there is call for a come to Jesus meeting with a dog, not much is held back. These occasions are very rare.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Randy Allen said:


> Christopher,
> If the seed had written a book on how he created and cemented the traits of an entirely different breed of dog and more over the directions on how to maintain the core of HIS creation that so many admire and cherish.
> Then yeah, I'd pay attention and give it weight.
> 
> But
> However he'll never be able to say he imagined and created an entirely new breed, much less one that if not now at one time, was wanted the world over.




Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Smith

Ok, Randy tell me about the dogs that Stephanitz bred? Names? Character? And of those dogs tell me about their training.

I bet that the The Seed has done more work with dogs than Stephanitz. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris McDonald

Debbie Skinner said:


> In France, the GSD has a French Confirme required (Breed Survey) in order to be used for breeding as do all the breeds in France. I've imported several FR titled GSDs over the years that could not confirme due to issues such as missing teeth. Very nice dogs. France's loss. Even in Belgium recently, friend breeders have said how they wished it was like America with more freedom to breed..problem there with the 2 registries and restrictions on breeders (FCI breeders not allowed to use NVBK dogs), dna being checked, etc. In France, breeders tell me the same thing. America has more freedom because we don't have the breed surveys and restrictions put on the breeders.
> 
> It's sure that I've made it known in France since the 90s that I'll consider for myself, Beauceron that can't confirme that have character and working drives.
> 
> Berger Allemand (French Confirmation) description:
> http://bergerallemand.pagesperso-orange.fr/infos/confirmation.htm
> In French. Can use http://translate.google.com to translate page in language of choice.


 
F- france!, Just saying


----------



## Chris McDonald

Christopher Smith said:


> Ok, Randy tell me about the dogs that Stephanitz bred? Names? Character? And of those dogs tell me about their training.
> 
> I bet that the The Seed has done more work with dogs than Stephanitz.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


I like how a lot on the board call him the “seed”, pretty funny


----------



## Randy Allen

What are you trying to turn this thread into a joke Christopher?

You're the one that has all those dusty trial books, aren't you?
You tell me. I'm not the one the set myself up as some kind of expert.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Christopher Smith said:


> Ok, Randy tell me about the dogs that Stephanitz bred? Names? Character? And of those dogs tell me about their training.
> 
> I bet that the The Seed has done more work with dogs than Stephanitz.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


LMAO Chris, I am dying to know, is your avatar a picture of you....maybe taken yesterday?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Randy Allen said:


> What are you trying to turn this thread into a joke Christopher?
> 
> You're the one that has all those dusty trial books, aren't you?
> You tell me. I'm not the one the set myself up as some kind of expert.


Come on Randy, don't tapout now. Let's take a look at some of the things you said.



Randy Allen said:


> Christopher,
> If the seed had written a book on how he created and cemented the traits of an entirely different breed of dog and more over the directions on how to maintain the core of HIS creation that so many admire and cherish.
> Then yeah, I'd pay attention and give it weight.


He didn't create the breed. By his own admission the dogs were already there. How can you create what was already there? What he did was create a stud book, not a breed. Also it was a group of men that started the registry, not just Stephanitz. Also you need to look up the Phylax Society. That was the first group to try to make a GSD registry and they broke up over a show and working split. And guess what side Stephanitz was on in the fight? (Here is a hint... the SV had a shows years before they had working trials. )



> But as of yet to my (admitly limited knowledge) he's just another breeder of Airedales.


The Seed might just be another breeder of Airedales but Stephanitz wasn't a big breeder. I put a lot of stock in a guy that actually breeds dogs. But maybe you don't and that's cool with me.

Also, there are no references anywhere of Stephanitz ever training a dog. How can a guy that doesn't train create a working breed? 

It seems that Stephanitz was a figurehead. He was a man that had the connections, money and status to move the organization forward. The real hands on work with the dogs was done by others of a lower class than he. He was a man of his times longing for and idealizing the rural and natural world that was shrinking due to the industrial revolution. This changing world gave rise to a lot of movements_[FONT=&quot](lebensform, [/FONT]_eugenics, naturalism, Darwinism,) the GSD was part of another idealistic back to nature movement.


----------



## Randy Allen

I hope you're into a breed other than GSD's, because you know even less then I do.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I don't think he was a very active breeder or a trainer but he had a certain vision and the herders were the go to dogs and the shepherds provided him information on the raising, keeping and training of stock dogs. I know from the anecdotes he cited and his sources, that he was conferring with real stock men because I have seen these traits in action. He did some breeding under the Grafath kennel name and as the head of the SV certainly controlled multiple breeding aspects throughout the breed. Due to certain conflicts of interest, I believed he stopped exhibiting. The SV began as a show dog organization. The Phylax society lasted about three years. Horand v. Grafath or Hector Linskshrein was the answer to both worlds and von Stephanitz recognized him as such. He could satisfy the tastes of both working and show. Initially, it seems there were testing certificates but there were conformation shows from the very beginning in 1899. Between 1901 and 1903 they began the efforts in the police dog movement in Germany. There was concern about kennel breeding, keeping dogs solely in the companion dog function and losing the working dog function, hence the testing system and ultimately Schutzhund. This isn't about von Stephanitz the great but the breeds' historical character and use.

Terrasita


----------



## Christopher Smith

Randy Allen said:


> I hope you're into a breed other than GSD's, because you know even less then I do.


Of course I do Randy. I'll let you off the hook now.


----------



## rick smith

i certainly don't want to trivialize a world class trainer like Lance
but from the way his interviews went and from what he has put into WORDS that i HAVE read, he seems to be another trainer who has recognized the value of using operant conditioning in the FULL way (ALL quadrants), from the BEGINNING of training
- to show the dog EXACTLY what you want ...incrementally
- make them want to do what you want them to do ... motivationally using the dog's drive
- build on it
- reinforce and condition it
- apply corrections, when needed, as needed

...iow it aint just the old style of "pack leadership" and correcting to compliance

if any of you who HAVE trained with him don't feel this a basically accurate assessment please explain


----------



## Steve Burger

rick smith said:


> i certainly don't want to trivialize a world class trainer like Lance
> but from the way his interviews went and from what he has put into WORDS that i HAVE read, he seems to be another trainer who has recognized the value of using operant conditioning in the FULL way (ALL quadrants), from the BEGINNING of training
> - to show the dog EXACTLY what you want ...incrementally
> - make them want to do what you want them to do ... motivationally using the dog's drive
> - build on it
> - reinforce and condition it
> - apply corrections, when needed, as needed
> 
> ...iow it aint just the old style of "pack leadership" and correcting to compliance
> 
> if any of you who HAVE trained with him don't feel this a basically accurate assessment please explain


From what I have seen there are many obedience trainers worldwide who get great results.. many with probably more consistent results at the higher levels than our best handlers.

From training with him, I see the two areas that stand out in Lance's system at the higher levels are the results in tracking and protection. For eample when Jogi Zank was at our club for 5 days, when Lance was working in protection I don't think Jogi was more than 10' away from him at any time. 

As far as Lance's obedience methodology, what would stand apart from other great systems I have seen, it would be if you were to come watch club training you would have a difficult time at first discerning the novice handlers results from club members who have been at the worlds on multiple occasions. I had the impression that Jogi was not overly impressed until he heard that some of the handler's had been training in Schutzhund for under 2 years. 

You just can't get it from reading a few articles...


----------



## Tracey Hughes

I agree with what Steve is saying, by reading Lance’s articles without seeing his club work with their dogs, you miss the big picture of just how well this methodology works. It’s not about just one talented person doing a good job in the training, its about each and every club member getting pretty equal results from all the dogs that impressed me the most. 

The other thing that sold me on Lance was his protection work, it was very similar to what we already were doing as far as keeping protection about fighting with the man, rather then playing a game of tug, but we were missing out the proper technique to get the extreme level of control that Lance’s group gets.

I am still working on getting the results in the tracking that we should be getting. Tracking has always been a weakness for me and we haven’t had as much time put in that phase when compared to the other 2, but we have pretty much understand the OB and Protection work now thanks to Lance and the entire WCGSSC. We are still a long ways away from the results the WCGSSC has gotten/gets from their dogs, but we are getting closer thanks to their ongoing assistance..

The best part is all our group’s dogs from new person to 15 years in are very uniform in the work, which is exciting for us to see. Along with us getting much better results in the work, we also have a stronger bonds between handlers and their dogs, as well as a much stronger, more positive club culture. 

As simple as it seems when on paper, this system has proven to be much harder to master then what you would expect. We have had people start training with us and then decide it is too difficult to continue on with, it tests the handlers character as much as it tests the dogs.


----------



## Bob Scott

I belonged to a club ( www.rwdc.org ) that taught operant in all phases including bite work. I titled my GDS to a SchIII, CDX, while there and never used a physical correction. There are more in the club that have done the same.
I will add that I don't believe any method, operant or compulsion addresses the leadership issue. Being the bearer of reward OR correction does not in itself make for leadership in your pack.
Operant can be nothing more then the dog that knows a full routine in competition but still doesn't come when called at home. I've seen that at the club I belonged to as well as the real world.
Compulsion can be nothing more then a dog that gives to physical pressure. I've seen that in previous OB clubs I belonged to as well as the real world. 
Leadership is something you get or you don't. Some are naturals at it, some learn it and some, in spite of yrs of dog "training", regardless of methods used, will never get it.


----------



## leslie cassian

Don Turnipseed said:


> That is a fact Randy....I created no new breeds or anything of the such magnitude. I am just another airedale breeder, but, one that is trying to retrieve the breed from devolving further into one of the pussified breeds of today. Don't think it can really be done because in the end it isn't the dogs at all, they can be retrieved. The problem is people and the changing times. There is little access to real work for a dog today. Without it, there is simply no future for real working caliber dogs, just dogs playing games that can, somewhat, look like the real deal.


I have to agree with Don on this. 

There just aren't that many people looking for 'real' dogs. Maybe within the limited confines of the working dog world, but what percentage of dog owners is that? For those that breed, how many of your dogs can you place in 'real' working homes? How many go to homes with handlers like me, full of good intentions, but because of circumstances, end up squandering all the working potential of a good dog and turning her into a nice little all-purpose pet dabbling in a bit of everything? (Not real work, but not a bad life for a dog, either.)


----------



## Randy Allen

That's the challenge we face, isn't it?
How do we in todays world, with all the dearth of true means testing and the pressures from without in the form (but not limited to) of the general population that can't or don't want to deal with a wl dog, how do we maintain the nature of the working dog?

Never mind arguing about what that nature is, how do we maintain anything of the working dog at all?


----------



## Tim Connell

Tim Connell said:


> Agreed, there is a lot to learn from various sport people, you are right on point there, Pete....and as for:
> 
> _"I've seen some dogs in various sporting clubs that I believe would make good patrol dogs. On the other hand, I've seen some sport dogs that have no business being on the training field let alone the street."_
> 
> Ain't that the truth.
> 
> 
> On a related topic: I have a friend with a very nice GSD he works in various venues...a sport guy told him that his dog has no business being a sport dog, since it's "too serious", and is a dog to take into an alley with you, not on a sport field...Hah! Guess it's a great dog then.  This dog is serious, but clear headed, and a great example of what a GSD should be. I'm guessing that apparently in that situation, it has become routine that some dogs with the personality of Lassie can squeak by, with a "helpful helper". I like seeing a hardcore dog go out and play at a sport, but take the sport "seriously". I think this is what it should be, and perhaps what it once was, "back in the day". Maybe I just look at it with a different set of eyes than some other people.
> 
> So that got me thinking:
> 
> Too bad more "sports" were not true tests of character, nerve, and working ability, rather than what some sports have become. Don't get me wrong, I have complete and utmost respect for anyone who participates in whatever venue or sport, and enjoys working their dog. Hell, one of these days I might go play in some of them too. With regard to true tests of a dog, I just wonder if something has been lost with expectations changing into routines that a dog that is not as strong as perhaps it should be can pass. I know it's "just a sport" to some, but it should also be a realistic tool for evaluation of the substance of a dog.
> 
> This situation is also theoretical to some degree, since any time "competition" is involved, everyone wants to be a "winner", so the variables of "gaming" a scenario or exercise for "points", fair and objective judging and evaluation, politics of the organization, "who is friends with who" in that given week, and many other factors come into play. Just like anything that is expected to be pure and raw, things often fall apart when people and personalities start meddling with it.
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on some core expectations of what a true evaluation of what a dog/handler team should exhibit? Bear in mind that this is when we are talking about "real" dogs, and how would you define that "real" dog term? I have a few thoughts bouncing around, but would love to hear what all of you think...I feel there are some "core competencies" that any suitable, versatile "real" dog should possess, or be able to demonstrate...I'm wondering what your "laundry lists" look like...
> 
> 
> Good thread.


*Any takers on my thought: 
*
"*Does anyone have any thoughts on some core expectations of what a true evaluation of what a dog/handler team should exhibit? Bear in mind that this is when we are talking about "real" dogs, and how would you define that "real" dog term? I have a few thoughts bouncing around, but would love to hear what all of you think...I feel there are some "core competencies" that any suitable, versatile "real" dog should possess, or be able to demonstrate...I'm wondering what your "laundry lists" look like..."*

***I'm thinking "realistic" testing, for a police dog, or real, legit personal protection dog.***

What are the criteria we can evaluate, and how? What are the skills that need to be on tap?
Scenarios, muzzle work, hidden sleeves...what are your thoughts?

...and don't anyone throw out the idea of showing up on "The Seed's" front porch. :grin: That's been done.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Tim Connell said:


> *Any takers on my thought:
> *
> "*Does anyone have any thoughts on some core expectations of what a true evaluation of what a dog/handler team should exhibit? Bear in mind that this is when we are talking about "real" dogs, and how would you define that "real" dog term? I have a few thoughts bouncing around, but would love to hear what all of you think...I feel there are some "core competencies" that any suitable, versatile "real" dog should possess, or be able to demonstrate...I'm wondering what your "laundry lists" look like..."*
> 
> ***I'm thinking "realistic" testing, for a police dog, or real, legit personal protection dog.***
> 
> What are the criteria we can evaluate, and how? What are the skills that need to be on tap?
> Scenarios, muzzle work, hidden sleeves...what are your thoughts?
> 
> ...and don't anyone throw out the idea of showing up on "The Seed's" front porch. :grin: That's been done.


You can't really test dogs, you would be jailed if you really adequately tested any dog today. Aside from the fact most people view sport as real work.


----------



## Jim Engel

Tim Connell said:


> *Any takers on my thought:
> *
> "*Does anyone have any thoughts on some core expectations of what a true evaluation of what a dog/handler team should exhibit? Bear in mind that this is when we are talking about "real" dogs, and how would you define that "real" dog term? I have a few thoughts bouncing around, but would love to hear what all of you think...I feel there are some "core competencies" that any suitable, versatile "real" dog should possess, or be able to demonstrate...I'm wondering what your "laundry lists" look like..."*
> 
> ***I'm thinking "realistic" testing, for a police dog, or real, legit personal protection dog.***
> 
> What are the criteria we can evaluate, and how? What are the skills that need to be on tap?
> Scenarios, muzzle work, hidden sleeves...what are your thoughts?
> 
> ...and don't anyone throw out the idea of showing up on "The Seed's" front porch. :grin: That's been done.


OK, Tim, let me respond to the silence. In self defense, I was not quite sure what this "the seed" business was all about, and was not quite sure what the implied blow back was going to come from.

It is easy to just say "KNPV." And there are ways and reasons to be critical about it; it is a very old program, and has responded to new realities, suit materials and training methods very slowly. It is not necessarily transferable, south Florida is probably not a good place to just pick a pond and do the water work.

But it has a few things going for it. If you want your certificate you come to the one or two appointed places per year with your dog. The judges, three of them, are selected and there are two certified decoys, likely from out of your providence. You don't get a KNPV certificate at a club trial.

I like the extreme long distance on the attacks, I have seen a handler use a bicycle to come up and call off his dog because of a handicap. Long distance sucks the courage and confidence out of the marginal dog.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO TRANSPLANT KNPV TO AMERICA.

But since you have brought up the question twice, I thought I would put it this way as a reasonable starting point for discussion.


----------



## Randy Allen

For me the sports venue is just a way for the dogs to get their nature realized.

That this sport offers this or that, what the sport offers depends on the dog, none of it depends on my want.

In the working lines, each dog has something to offer. Not necessarily breeding stock, but something to offer in their own right.


----------



## Edward Egan

Funny how for the most part those that don't work dogs have this notion that what we do isn't good enough to call it work, or to be able to see the inter dog, if you will, to provide suitable candidates for breeding stock. That we basically are wasting are time and should pack it in. But from my viewpoint it seems you guys talk in circles. Somehow killing boar is work, but doing a iPO III, FH, or SAR isn't.

So let's take away all the sports, this leaves us with a few thousand PSD and military dogs, how many of them are able and willing to breed. Is this enough to provide the stock needed to continue the GSD and other working dogs? I have my doubts.

We don't really have much of a choice. It's not like we have five or ten different realistic sports to choose from. Like we have volunteers that are willing to allow live bites on them for a case of beer.

So what's it going to be non-believers? Is what most of us here do with our dogs good enough to see what we are breeding, or are most of the breeders throughing a dart at the board while blindfolded?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Quit whining Edward. You can't test dogs in real situations, you can't test for all the variable, you can't test to see if the dog will take a real beating and still get the job done or cur....need I go on? It has nothing to do with sport work, it is just reality. Put your big boy pants on. Good god, my dogs get hurt or killed doing what they are bred to do and working folks cry about it. Like I said, it isn't the dogs, it is the mindset of people today. You want the real deal but pussification is a big roadblock......and it is reality.


----------



## Edward Egan

Don Turnipseed said:


> Quit whining Edward. You can't test dogs in real situations, you can't test for all the variable, you can't test to see if the dog will take a real beating and still get the job done or cur....need I go on? It has nothing to do with sport work, it is just reality. Put your big boy pants on. Good god, my dogs get hurt or killed doing what they are bred to do and working folks cry about it. Like I said, it isn't the dogs, it is the mindset of people today. You want the real deal but pussification is a big roadblock......and it is reality.


 
It seems you had your big boy pants on several months back, then the bad guy came to your home and scare your big bad dog out the window. Ever since your around here putting down sport work, etc. So maybe it's you that should check and see whats rapped around your ankles. Have you ever even seen a IPO trial in person? Who are you to judge what's work?


----------



## Randy Allen

And that brings us back to what I think was posed originally at the start of this thread.

Just what does a 'serious working dog' mean?

I had a very nice Britney many years ago that accidentally ran into a porcupine while we were on a hunting, no big deal. except it pissed her off so much she was bound and determined to track down every one and kill them.
I finally had to put her down she got into one much too bad. Never could break her off the damn things.
Was she a serious dog?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

What constitutes a real working dog? 

A real retriever retrieves when told and regardless of condition or whether or not conditions is to it's liking.

A real protection dog protects when needed, regardless of circumstance.

Real dogs get the job done in real situations

Same as there are miliions of "hunting" dogs in the world, but, the real ones consistently put the food on the table. The rest are hunting dogs by heritage only.

Boils down to proving themselves at the job at hand for real.

Then there are the real serious working dogs that operate more out of desire. The majority of their training is to real them in, and get them to do the job within certain parameters....but they don't have to be trained to want to do the job. They are dead bang serious. That will start it off.


----------



## Edward Weiss

Lots of different kinds of serious

Don't know the PETA quotient here to post pics


----------



## Randy Allen

She was a very good gun dog....excepting if she ran across a porcupine trail.

It was the only reason I kept her as long as I did, she was a very good gun dog.
I don't know how many nights I spent with bloody pliers pulling quills. And I don't even want to think of the vet bills I paid with money I couldn't afford.

But she was a very good dog, serious.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I may be wrong here, but, I think the dogs Jim Engle was referring to is the last category of "real serious dogs" dogs that get the job done. Problem between sport dogs and these dogs.....the sport dog gets the points so that is the direction the breeding goes. May be wrong though. Don't think so.


----------



## Edward Egan

Don Turnipseed said:


> I may be wrong here, but, I think the dogs Jim Engle was referring to is the last category of "real serious dogs" dogs that get the job done. Problem between sport dogs and these dogs.....the sport dog gets the points so that is the direction the breeding goes. May be wrong though. Don't think so.


And what it this epiphany based on? Your vast amount of experience working dogs in sport or maybe Jim's? You read all this crap about point dogs and believe it, therefore every breeder of sport dogs is only breeding for points. How naive!


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Edward Egan said:


> And what it this epiphany based on? Your vast amount of experience working dogs in sport or maybe Jim's? You read all this crap about point dogs and believe it, therefore every breeder of sport dogs is only breeding for points. How naive!


Edward, just answer the question posed to the best of your ability. Keep this in mind, my dog gets killed while in the field, it is my fault, not the pigs. I am sure you get the drift. It is reality, not how I would like to remember it. May be news to you, but, I don't have to compete in show to see the downfall and there isn't a lot of difference my friend. To much based on politics and looking good but not enough of getting the job done.


----------



## rick smith

HUNTING with a dog or dogs really isn't a game at all, and even tho the handler needs some degree of control, they are basically allowing the dogs to work independently.....i would consider this EASIER, "training wise"
- any BITE SPORT has to be considered a game since there are rules. period. dog has been conditioned to react within the rules and always under handler control. BUT, because it is "only" a game doesn't mean it isn't "serious work with serious dogs"
- fwiw, i think the term "protection" is a bit overused in the sport area tho, and i simply call it controlled aggression...for me there is a difference
- but i would never demean high level training for ANY bite sport. it is MUCH harder to "train"....no brainer there
- so with that said, why try to compare the two in the first place ?
- both need serious dogs to excel in either use. both are true working dogs. sport requires much more training because it is not natural instinctive behaviors that are being tested in a real environment, but to say one is "realer" than the other is a useless debate to me


----------



## Don Turnipseed

rick smith said:


> HUNTING with a dog or dogs really isn't a game at all, and even tho the handler needs some degree of control, they are basically allowing the dogs to work independently.....i would consider this EASIER, "training wise"
> - any BITE SPORT has to be considered a game since there are rules. period. dog has been conditioned to react within the rules and always under handler control. BUT, because it is "only" a game doesn't mean it isn't "serious work with serious dogs"
> - fwiw, i think the term "protection" is a bit overused in the sport area tho, and i simply call it controlled aggression...for me there is a difference
> - but i would never demean high level training for ANY bite sport. it is MUCH harder to "train"....no brainer there
> - so with that said, why try to compare the two in the first place ?
> - both need serious dogs to excel in either use. both are true working dogs. sport requires much more training because it is not natural instinctive behaviors that are being tested in a real environment, but to say one is "realer" than the other is a useless debate to me


Get with the program Rick, no one is saying anything of the such, it is about preserving the serious working dogs regardless of use. Go back and read some of the posts. I even stated that dogs like my own are on their last legs and I doubt the trend is reversable. I am not putting down anything, just stating the obvious. I suspect that the real serious dogs, which I dearly love, are even becoming a serious liabilty in LE today considering lawsuits. There is little real work for such dogs today and there is less every year. Serious working dogs of all kinds are becoming more of an idealized perception rather than a reality. You would laugh if you knew how many people buy my dogs to hunt anymore. They just want a hunting bred dog because it is not a show dog.....not because they are going to hunt it. Gets worse all the time.


----------



## rick smith

actually Don, i didn't even write anything about how many real LE dogs there are or if their numbers are dwindling ... you just did 

i was talking hunting vs sport in terms of "reality" and in terms of training ///// kinda how this thread started out 15 pages ago
.....and threw in some of my opinions on the "protection" aspect of sport cause i like that topic too 

**** maybe i shoulda also said that my gut feeling is hunting dogs would rarely show protection of their handler either.......if a boar or a bear came back thru the dogs and nailed you, would the dogs "protect" you if you took a hit and went down, or would they just focus on their original target and leave you laying there to fend for yourself ? i suggest they would NOT place themselves between you and the boar and bravely give their lives to save your hide  but could be wrong...only went on a couple boar hunts and there were no dramatics involved so i'm purely speculating ... but maybe with your experience you have had this type of incident before ??

anyway.....hard to stay on top of threads these days to know which ways they have morphed


----------



## Erik Berg

As long as there are a demand for sport and "real" workingdogs breeders are going to breed for that and hence keep the workingdog alive, granted with some differences of what is an ideal dog. I suppose a dog with the right genetics and training will do the job, why else use dogs if this is such a complicated task. Many PSDs, depending where you live of course, main job is tracking/searching, which you obviously can test in realistic conditions. Long drawn out battles with suspects where the armed police just stands and watch what the outcome will be are probably not happening too often and the most important thing for the "real" workingdogs.

IPO or other sports can produce dogs where 60-100% of the dogs are working as PSDs, so the gap between sport and real work is probably not so big if the correct sportdogs are used in breedings.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Erik Berg said:


> As long as there are a demand for sport and "real" workingdogs breeders are going to breed for that and hence keep the workingdog alive, granted with some differences of what is an ideal dog. I suppose a dog with the right genetics and training will do the job, why else use dogs if this is such a complicated task. Many PSDs, depending where you live of course, main job is tracking/searching, which you obviously can test in realistic conditions. Long drawn out battles with suspects where the armed police just stands and watch what the outcome will be are probably not happening too often and the most important thing for the "real" workingdogs.
> 
> IPO or other sports can produce dogs where 60-100% of the dogs are working as PSDs, so the gap between sport and real work is probably not so big if the correct sportdogs are used in breedings.


Very true Erik,,, i think 50percent is the average for most decent lines. As long as we know how to identify the strong and weak dogs and breed accordingly i'm sure there'll be no shortage of 'real' dogs. Most police dogs need training to bring out their genetic ability to fight a man. Sports are about the best way to select dogs for work, intense prey drive and environmental soundness in a dog usually make potential police dogs.


----------



## Edward Weiss

rick smith said:


> HUNTING with a dog or dogs really isn't a game at all, and even tho the handler needs some degree of control, they are basically allowing the dogs to work independently.....i would consider this EASIER, "training wise"
> - any BITE SPORT has to be considered a game since there are rules. period. dog has been conditioned to react within the rules and always under handler control. BUT, because it is "only" a game doesn't mean it isn't "serious work with serious dogs"
> - fwiw, i think the term "protection" is a bit overused in the sport area tho, and i simply call it controlled aggression...for me there is a difference
> - but i would never demean high level training for ANY bite sport. it is MUCH harder to "train"....no brainer there
> - so with that said, why try to compare the two in the first place ?
> - both need serious dogs to excel in either use. both are true working dogs. sport requires much more training because it is not natural instinctive behaviors that are being tested in a real environment, but to say one is "realer" than the other is a useless debate to me


You need to attend retriever trials re how much training is involved with hunting dogs


----------



## James Downey

Don Turnipseed said:


> I may be wrong here, but, I think the dogs Jim Engle was referring to is the last category of "real serious dogs" dogs that get the job done. Problem between sport dogs and these dogs.....the sport dog gets the points so that is the direction the breeding goes. May be wrong though. Don't think so.


You are wrong. At least in the terms of Malinois. 

Lupano's Duke is one of the best producing studs for IPO Malinois in the last 8 years & he's had more offspring win a world championship than most studs have progeny get to the world championships. He regularly has multiple progeny place in the top 25 of IPO dogs in the world...year after year. He was a pretty good IPO dog, and I hear an even better police dog. 

So, say what you will but that kind of proves something. What sport people are looking for is not mutually exclusive from real work. 

I actually was going to comment early on. But I wanted to see how long people went with this.... But I do not think the problem is as big as people are making out to be. I know plenty of Malinois breeders that are selling Malinois to Police Dept, HLS, Customs, and private contractors who are more than satisified with the dogs. Most Departments are not looking for "Real" they are looking for controllable, will it be good with kids, will it be safe in public, these are the questions they are asking. Just ask the Cook county police bitching about how crazy thier working dogs are...so crazy, they want more money. 

Here's another observation...I see breeders getting Malinois back almost exclusivley from sport dog people for not being a enough dog.....and guess who buys the "not enough" dog and loves it....you bet, It's the police.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Yeh, I wasn't going to respond to this thread at all but, since Chris and Tim Connel invited me, I thought what the hell. A touch of reality damned sure won't hurt anyone :wink: James, just give it time, the mal will go down the same road as every other breed has here in the states ....you can bank on that. If Europe closed there doors on dog exports tomorrow, mals would be short lived for sure.


----------



## rick smith

of course retriever trialing requires a LOT of training; i would never not agree to that
- but compared to training for bite sports i sure would and at the highest levels it requires a LOT more training than any other dog sport
- there is NO genetic instinct that has evolved in a domestic dog that makes it want to attack humans. PERIOD....repeat - NONE - that is why they are DOMESTIC canines for christ's sake !!
....to train a dog to do that requires controlled aggression that is contrary to why theur are a DOMESTIC dog ... and they gotta LIKE it  you can selectively breed for that behavior, kinda, but mostly you just look for a dog that is clear confident and likes to BITE and mold it from there....man aggression still isn't "in the dna" and probably won't be for a few thousand years imo
...lots of aggression tho ...some good some bad...but has to be "channeled" (aka training) to be effective
- call it prey drive fight drive or whatever you wish, but no one can convince me that a domestic dog is born with true "man aggression" in it's dna
- yeah i know, no one agrees but that is my opinion based on what makes a domestic dog a domestic dog ](*,)

look at any world class (bite sport) canine ... forgetting about the tracking agility and OB events for a moment......they are not out on that field "protecting" anyone...they are out there looking to EAT decoys whenever given the chance by their handler...they live for it and they LOVE it
- controlled aggression, not protection 
- many probably have a hard time NOT taking that attitude "home" with them, but the really balanced dogs can do it IF the owner wants that kind of balance ...also my opinion of course .... which isn't worth much 
- but that's why i think it is harder to train by a wide margin


----------



## Randy Allen

I think the only animal on the planet thats truely 'man aggressive' is man.

We have met the enemy!
And it's us.


----------



## rick smith

" Bingo!!! " Randy


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Guessing you never heard of a Polar Bear huh guys?


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> - call it prey drive fight drive or whatever you wish, but no one can convince me that a domestic dog is born with true "man aggression" in it's dna


what would true man aggression be like if it was in a dog's DNA?

I have seen several dogs from specific lines that I would say were born with man aggression in their DNA... need to know what you mean, to see if they would qualify as per your definition...


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> Guessing you never heard of a Polar Bear huh guys?


I don't think polar bears are regarded as truely 'man aggressive' are they ? I am aware of predatory behaviour by some bears, according to some studies I've read, they are generally male sub adults (but not always), starvation being a likely motivation... or a female in defense of her young. Not what one would term truely man aggressive though is it?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

maggie fraser said:


> I don't think polar bears are regarded as truely 'man aggressive' are they ? I am aware of predatory behaviour by some bears, according to some studies I've read, they are generally male sub adults (but not always), starvation being a likely motivation... or a female in defense of her young. Not what one would term truely man aggressive though is it?


worked around the bears a lot at the zoo....these polar bears were not starving but would just as soon make a meal of you as anything else....but, we could divide aggression into classes and give them a pass....see a lot of that mentality going around these days. Most animals fear man, or at least, respect man....polar bears do not....maybe that will put it into perspective.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> .... these polar bears were not starving but would just as soon make a meal of you as anything else.... Most animals fear man, or at least, respect man....polar bears do not....


----------



## Sara Waters

From the documentries I have seen Polar bears consider man well and truly as part of the food chain. They certainly dont distinguish them from any other prey. I dont know if you would call it man aggression any more that you would call it seal aggression though. Simply catching themselves a meal.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Sara Waters said:


> .... I dont know if you would call it man aggression any more that you would call it seal aggression though. Simply catching themselves a meal.


----------



## Randy Allen

Don't quite know what you're asking Joby.
I've known dogs that certainly thought they were equal to any man and that were more than a handful and I've met dogs that were just twisted and aggressive to any and everything.
Neither is the norm, but one I'd term a dominant pita, the other I'd term just hay wired. But I wouldn't give either the tag of 'man aggressive'.

In the wild all animals avoid humans like the plague. The larger mammals only hassel man when mistaken for or get in the way of their food or bent about territory or fear for themselves or their young. Otherwise they give us wide berth.


----------



## Randy Allen

So don,
Do you really think polar bears actively hunt man?


----------



## kerry engels

Joby Becker said:


> what would true man aggression be like if it was in a dog's DNA?
> 
> I have seen several dogs from specific lines that I would say were born with man aggression in their DNA... need to know what you mean, to see if they would qualify as per your definition...


 
I am curious what lines those were, thanks, pm if you don't want to post it.


----------



## Sara Waters

Randy Allen said:


> So don,
> Do you really think polar bears actively hunt man?


I think they will. They dont avoid them, they view them a prey if they are hungry. The tourist viewing buses are heavily fortified and I have seen footage of bears at the base of a research lab situated at the top of a pillar, trying to figure out how to get in to that lab when scientists are in there. Polar bears are not to be trifled with and they will approach man, no doubt.

Different from Africa where tourists are in open vehicles when viewing large predators up close.


----------



## James Downey

Don Turnipseed said:


> Yeh, I wasn't going to respond to this thread at all but, since Chris and Tim Connel invited me, I thought what the hell. A touch of reality damned sure won't hurt anyone :wink: James, just give it time, the mal will go down the same road as every other breed has here in the states ....you can bank on that. If Europe closed there doors on dog exports tomorrow, mals would be short lived for sure.


And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.


----------



## Randy Allen

But that's for food or territory Sara, not aggression as such.

Granted if you happen to be on the recieving end, the distinction probably wouldn't make a great deal of difference to you. lol


----------



## Sara Waters

Randy Allen said:


> But that's for food or territory Sara, not aggression as such.
> 
> Granted if you happen to be on the recieving end, the distinction probably wouldn't make a great deal of difference to you. lol


Yes as I said before I wouldnt call it "man aggression" it is just hunting for prey and we are definitely on the menu. Out on the ice with a limited hunting season I would think you would have to take every opportunity for a meal.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

James Downey said:


> And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.


At least there would be one in the family then SC.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Randy Allen said:


> But that's for food or territory Sara, not aggression as such.
> 
> Granted if you happen to be on the recieving end, the distinction probably wouldn't make a great deal of difference to you. lol


Ok, so tell me what you would call it when an animal hunts you down, kills you, and eats you. Just being buds? Maybe y'all should decide, in the process of being killed and eaten, what constitutes aggression? Maybe aggression is meerly being attacked but not killed? I know if a dog kills a person it is aggression.....just not if a bear does it??? LOL Damn it is hard keeping up with the changes of attitude to coincide with everyone's different daily viewpoints. Like I have said, the reason for aggression doesn't matter....it is still aggression. Trying to rationalize a specific reason for these things is a fairly new phenomenon. Aggression is still aggression in the end regardless of the why.


----------



## rick smith

re: "Guessing you never heard of a Polar Bear huh guys?"
Don, you mean like cougars, bears and coyotes in urban areas, etc ?
i see it only as TOA ...... (targets of opportunity)
- maybe the indigenous cultures on polar bear home turf would have the answer ?? what do they say ?

Joby - of course people get "bit" all the time for different reasons, and some dogs do it more, but no, i really haven't seen a man aggressive dog that i could define as genetic from any personal experiences ...one reason why i don't think it is genetic...would be a hypothetical def
- i know it sounds crazy and oversimplified, but for me it's one of the reasons a dog is a dog and would seem to be almost like "reverse engineering" the species to develop man aggression genetic markers

that's why they are so amazingly adaptable and such great companions...we can mold em and make em do things for us they would probably not do if they made their own decisions based purely on genetic instinct

to me the true man aggressive dog would be a dichotomy ... one willing to aggress who we want but still treat others as a friend or partner ...that's asking a lot for a lot of dogs...maybe the ultimate training challenge to do it right .... just my opinion
- maybe the lines you refer to have minimized/eliminated the "biddability" side in favor of the civil "protection" side ?? what kind of breed/lines are you referring to ?


----------



## rick smith

Don :
"Ok, so tell me what you would call it when an animal hunts you down, kills you, and eats you. Just being buds?"
----- for the human or the animal ? for the human - being stupid and careless, and for the animal ... maybe just an easy day, basic survival and another meal with no hard feelings 

"Maybe y'all should decide, in the process of being killed and eaten, what constitutes aggression? Maybe aggression is meerly being attacked but not killed? I know if a dog kills a person it is aggression.....just not if a bear does it??? "
--- ??????

"LOL Damn it is hard keeping up with the changes of attitude to coincide with everyone's different daily viewpoints."
--- i can only speak for myself .... my viewpoints don't change on a daily basis 

" Like I have said, the reason for aggression doesn't matter....it is still aggression. Trying to rationalize a specific reason for these things is a fairly new phenomenon. Aggression is still aggression in the end regardless of the why."
---- didn't know this thread was about defining aggression and sorry if my comment sent it in the wrong direction, but i think reasons for dog aggression are important in dog training 
.... and your point about dog aggression is ...what ?????


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_" ..... the reason for aggression doesn't matter....it is still aggression. Trying to rationalize a specific reason for these things is a fairly new phenomenon."_

No it's not! Seriously? Reasons behind aggression have only recently been questioned?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

rick smith said:


> Don : .... i think reasons for dog aggression are important in dog training


So do I. And it's not a new "change of attitude" or my "different daily viewpoint." 

I thought so yesterday too. And, let me think back ..... I'm pretty sure Wednesday as well. :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

If you don't understand the reason for aggression your never going to get it under real control.
If I have a dog with serious forward aggression come at me and I treat it like fear aggression I'm probably going to regret my moves.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

James Downey said:


> I know plenty of Malinois breeders that are selling Malinois to Police Dept, HLS, Customs, and private contractors who are more than satisified with the dogs. *Most Departments are not looking for "Real" they are looking for controllable, will it be good with kids, will it be safe in public, these are the questions they are asking.* Just ask the Cook county police bitching about how crazy thier working dogs are...so crazy, they want more money.
> 
> Here's another observation...*I see breeders getting Malinois back almost exclusivley from sport dog people for not being a enough dog.....and guess who buys the "not enough" dog and loves it....you bet, It's the police*.


This is my question regarding what is actually desired/required in the LE dual functions vs. sport more is better extreme bad ass "real" dog theory. Are the dogs that are not enough dogs able to function in the street patrol dog function? For the street patrol dog, do they desire a dog that has social reliability around children, crowds, etc.?

Terrasita


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe

Joby Becker said:


> what would true man aggression be like if it was in a dog's DNA?
> 
> I have seen several dogs from specific lines that I would say were born with man aggression in their DNA... need to know what you mean, to see if they would qualify as per your definition...


"Canines are not cannibalistic by nature"( Armin Winkler Quote ) Some new and very interesting articles on his new website www.k9trainingexperts.com I am also interested in what "true man aggression" would look like? definition? hard to believe it would be in a dogs DNA is there any scientific proof?


----------



## rick smith

afaik, genetic markers for behaviors have not been identified 
- probably because we can't even agree on what they are 
- and not far advanced in "behavior genetics"

but if they had been, it would make professional working dog breeding as "easy" as show dog breeding ))))))))))

but we care a little more than size shape and color combos


----------



## Don Turnipseed

rick smith said:


> Don :
> "Ok, so tell me what you would call it when an animal hunts you down, kills you, and eats you. Just being buds?"
> ----- for the human or the animal ? for the human - being stupid and careless, and for the animal ... maybe just an easy day, basic survival and another meal with no hard feelings
> 
> "Maybe y'all should decide, in the process of being killed and eaten, what constitutes aggression? Maybe aggression is meerly being attacked but not killed? I know if a dog kills a person it is aggression.....just not if a bear does it??? "
> --- ??????
> 
> "LOL Damn it is hard keeping up with the changes of attitude to coincide with everyone's different daily viewpoints."
> --- i can only speak for myself .... my viewpoints don't change on a daily basis
> 
> " Like I have said, the reason for aggression doesn't matter....it is still aggression. Trying to rationalize a specific reason for these things is a fairly new phenomenon. Aggression is still aggression in the end regardless of the why."
> ---- didn't know this thread was about defining aggression and sorry if my comment sent it in the wrong direction, but i think reasons for dog aggression are important in dog training
> .... and your point about dog aggression is ...what ?????


My point about dog aggression is what??? Don't think I brought the subject up....somebody said man is the animal theat preys on man. I mentioned the polar bears. Then someone decided there is no aggression gene in canines.....and I am asked what my point was. LOLOLOL Suddenly that is not aggression, but, something else. Seems to me if your walking down the street, dog runs off the porch and bites you, that is not aggression either because he had a specific reason called territoriality. Dog bites you in the face multiple times for picking up his dog dish....not people aggression either because he also had another reason and simply didn't do it to be aggressive. It is his bowl.    Bear was just hungry and kills people, not aggression. But man kills another man for love or money....now that is aggression! Got it! I was just confused I guess. :wink:

Back to what is pertinent. History has seen every decent working breed backslide when bred in the US. Doesn't matter how many good specimens are brought in or for how many years. We cannot maintain the integrity of good genetics. Maybe the ideal question regarding saving the real dogs would be to ask, "WHY CAN"T THE IMPORTED GENETICS BE MAINTAINED OVER TIME BY US BREEDERS?" Let's start there. Why?


----------



## Joby Becker

Randy Allen said:


> Don't quite know what you're asking Joby.
> I've known dogs that certainly thought they were equal to any man and that were more than a handful and I've met dogs that were just twisted and aggressive to any and everything.
> Neither is the norm, but one I'd term a dominant pita, the other I'd term just hay wired. But I wouldn't give either the tag of 'man aggressive'.
> 
> In the wild all animals avoid humans like the plague. The larger mammals only hassel man when mistaken for or get in the way of their food or bent about territory or fear for themselves or their young. Otherwise they give us wide berth.


I was more leaning towards addressing the training equation of it..and the statement that it is not in the dna, because dogs are domisticated...and the old nature vs. nurture part. And just stating that it is my belief that it IS in some dogs DNA, period..

I am not saying that it is the norm, or that it is useful in all cases, or even that it is directed towards every person they encounter. Just stating that there are dogs out there that are born with the traits to be aggressive towards people, and it is NOT a factor of training.


----------



## James Downey

Don Turnipseed said:


> My point about dog aggression is what??? Don't think I brought the subject up....somebody said man is the animal theat preys on man. I mentioned the polar bears. Then someone decided there is no aggression gene in canines.....and I am asked what my point was. LOLOLOL Suddenly that is not aggression, but, something else. Seems to me if your walking down the street, dog runs off the porch and bites you, that is not aggression either because he had a specific reason called territoriality. Dog bites you in the face multiple times for picking up his dog dish....not people aggression either because he also had another reason and simply didn't do it to be aggressive. It is his bowl.    Bear was just hungry and kills people, not aggression. But man kills another man for love or money....now that is aggression! Got it! I was just confused I guess. :wink:
> 
> Back to what is pertinent. History has seen every decent working breed backslide when bred in the US. Doesn't matter how many good specimens are brought in or for how many years. We cannot maintain the integrity of good genetics. Maybe the ideal question regarding saving the real dogs would be to ask, "WHY CAN"T THE IMPORTED GENETICS BE MAINTAINED OVER TIME BY US BREEDERS?" Let's start there. Why?


You sure that's history and not some silly assumption you made? the problem with breeds that have slid downhill being is not exclusivley in the U.S. 

So Don if you don't mind, what decent working breeds are doing well in Europe that have slid downhill in the U.S. ?


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> Joby - of course people get "bit" all the time for different reasons, and some dogs do it more, but no, i really haven't seen a man aggressive dog that i could define as genetic from any personal experiences ...one reason why i don't think it is genetic...would be a hypothetical def
> - i know it sounds crazy and oversimplified, but for me it's one of the reasons a dog is a dog and would seem to be almost like "reverse engineering" the species to develop man aggression genetic markers
> 
> that's why they are so amazingly adaptable and such great companions...we can mold em and make em do things for us they would probably not do if they made their own decisions based purely on genetic instinct
> 
> to me the true man aggressive dog would be a dichotomy ... one willing to aggress who we want but still treat others as a friend or partner ...that's asking a lot for a lot of dogs...maybe the ultimate training challenge to do it right .... just my opinion
> - maybe the lines you refer to have minimized/eliminated the "biddability" side in favor of the civil "protection" side ?? what kind of breed/lines are you referring to ?


Was just addressing what I dont agree with saying it is not in the DNA. Like dogs that need to be molded to NOT aggress people, because that is what they do on genetic instinct.

Say you have a dog that only accepts his core family unit, and will aggress or attack others, if allowed to.

Dogs are social animals and are domesticated, but those traits have a wide spectrum. Some dogs appear to require social interactions with 1 person or a small family unit, and are openly hostile towards everyone else, without training, without people making them way, or asking them to be that way, and more often then not, against the owners wishes.

I can agree that it may not always be cases of open human aggression as well, which is how you guys are looking at it, for me, it is more the tendency, or the propensity to be aggressive towards humans, for a variety of reasons...that are internal to the dog, as opposed to trained into the dog...

there are 1000's of guard dogs (and not ALL shitters, and fearbiters either) that are used for those duties, because it is in their DNA to be man aggressive, in my opinion...that will actually kill people. and have killed people. there are dogs that maul and kill or maim people around the globe, that were not "trained" or "made" to do so. 

I have seen puppies that I would call aggressive towards people as early as 12 weeks or so, and some that are ready to act on and use that aggression physically actively by 6-7 months of age.

If one was to get a pup like that...that is aggressive towards people in general, and not socialize it or mold it or train it to not be aggressive, and allowed the dog to mature with that tendency, I would say it was in the DNA. but that is just me...it might not accept and befriend people that you wanted it too, like you said...but in my opinion has man aggression in its DNA. and yes I agree that might not be desirable, but it does happen.

I get where you guys are coming from now though.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

James Downey said:


> You sure that's history and not some silly assumption you made? the problem with breeds that have slid downhill being is not exclusivley in the U.S.
> 
> So Don if you don't mind, what decent working breeds are doing well in Europe that have slid downhill in the U.S. ?


Just about any breed that becomes popular James. How many decades has the GSD been in the US? People still spend the big bucks to import the European dogs for a reason. While the GSD on both sides of the pond should be equivolent after this many decades, they are not. Dogs are imported regularily to shore up the breeding population here. The US breeders get two dogs and picture themselve as the savior of the breed. European lines have often been around longer than many breeders here have been alive.....there in lies one of the big differences. That translates to the fact that they have done it long enough to have learned a few things that 99% of the US breeders never stay in the game long enough to learn.....breeding is more than putting two dogs together. European breeders have done it for years and have developed actual lines. Each line may vary in specific characteristics and traits, but, that translates to them bringing in other dogs and knowing exactly what to expect to improve their lines. Better dogs is a lifelong commitment for them, not a hobby. 

Get your feelings off your sleeve James. This is precisely the reason I didn't bring in an American bred airedale. This problem is not exclusively in the sport world so don't take it as such. It is across the canine world.


----------



## jim stevens

Don Turnipseed said:


> Just about any breed that becomes popular James. How many decades has the GSD been in the US? People still spend the big bucks to import the European dogs for a reason. While the GSD on both sides of the pond should be equivolent after this many decades, they are not. Dogs are imported regularily to shore up the breeding population here. The US breeders get two dogs and picture themselve as the savior of the breed. European lines have often been around longer than many breeders here have been alive.....there in lies one of the big differences. That translates to the fact that they have done it long enough to have learned a few things that 99% of the US breeders never stay in the game long enough to learn.....breeding is more than putting two dogs together. European breeders have done it for years and have developed actual lines. Each line may vary in specific characteristics and traits, but, that translates to them bringing in other dogs and knowing exactly what to expect to improve their lines. Better dogs is a lifelong commitment for them, not a hobby.
> 
> Get your feelings off your sleeve James. This is precisely the reason I didn't bring in an American bred airedale. This problem is not exclusively in the sport world so don't take it as such. It is across the canine world.


I think the problem with working breed dogs is a lack of competition, clubs, etc. That makes it hard to justify keeping true to working lines. I don't think it is a problem that US breeders don't know how to breed. I ride cutting horses, and there sure isn't any problem with American breeders keeping their performance intact. The horses that won 30 years ago for the most part couldn't win a check today. There has to be an incentive for good breeding. A $25000 to $500000 horse give a good incentive, raising a dog with no place to show, etc doesn't give much incentive.


----------



## Edward Weiss

Couldn't agree more. Where there is a market there is a supply. Bigger and more demanding market,and suppliers rise to the occasion and in turn stimulate even a more demanding market. 
This is evident in flat out performance bird dogs.
Literally millions of dollars are in play with competition for major events that bring out armies of dogs,expensive rigs trainers,hangers on ,wanna be's and crowds of spectators.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Then we are back to "what has competition done to the real dogs?" Apples and oranges.
Bird dogs ranging hundreds of yards in front of the gun for the sake of competition does what for the bird dog as a usefull hunting tool....or, put another way..... real work?

In the end, it is a a lot of reasons the true working caliber dog is getting hard to come by. Take your choice. Changing times and mindsets of what constitutes a working dog is a large part of it.


----------



## Skip Morgart

jim stevens said:


> ....." There has to be an incentive for good breeding. A $25000 to $500000 horse give a good incentive, raising a dog with no place to show, etc doesn't give much incentive.


There are people EASILY paying that amount for some adult "show" rotts from europe...but many are weak when it comes to the work (IF they do any work at all).


----------



## rick smith

regardless of the country, i think the main reasons breed vitality goes downhill :
1. breeding for looks only for showing in beauty contests
2. because a breed that gets popular gets bred by people who like them and get a M/F who want more for their friends and hopefully make a few bucks while they do it
3. people want to cash in on the demand ... and sell more

unfortunately i feel even "protection" and breeders/vendors may sometimes fall into the third category, because the demand is high now, and a lot don't meet the buyers standards and get dumped on the non PSD type markets as "pet only" to owners who can't handle them properly and some of those may get bred again irresponsibly and weaken the gene pool further .... but i hope i'm wrong here 
- but like any business, gotta keep the inventory as low as possible and that is especially true with canines no matter what type you're selling. at least in japan, the puppy farmers cull the ones that don't look "cute" enuff to sell, but that is another issue :-(
- i doubt there are many if any working breeders that cull rather than sell :-(

unfortunately i think the decline of breed vitality is inevitable and unstoppable and i can't think of any breed at all that has gotten better and better the longer the breed has been bred ....as a pure breed. 
- anyone know of one that hasn't ??

a pure breed that has gotten better over time ?? like a good wine ???
- none comes to my mind but maybe in huskies for the sled dog sports ?? but are they concerned with breed purity or are there crosses mixed in to improve performance ??
Terrasita ??

but i also have confidence there are still good breeders of good working dogs in the states

for DON ... the states is probably the biggest dog ownership market in the world ... more dogs, more bad breedings equals weaker dogs ... but not because americans can't breed quality dogs; i feel they can and i think we have a few right on this list doing just that... 

but as china prospers even more, look for them to have the worst impact on breed degradation....in most developed places they have at least stopped eating em and are keeping em as pets and household decorations.....dog sports have not taken off yet in any big way, but that too will probably happen eventually :-(
- japan has done their best to ruin breeds, but it is a much smaller country compared to china
...just my .02


----------



## Jim Engel

*The bigger picture.*

There are a lot of good Malinois breeders and trainers out there producing 
excellent dogs.

There are a lot of good German Shepherd breeders and trainers out there
producing excellent dogs.

That is why this struggle is worth while, if we are beaten then it is a 
defeat, but if we quit than it is a shame on us, a stain on our integrity.


----------



## Randy Allen

But once again we come back to question of how many of the general population is willing or even able to take on a working line dog of any breed and see it through?

That's why us working dog advocates will always be a small circle in the wider, much larger, community of pet owners.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> regardless of the country, i think the main reasons breed vitality goes downhill :
> 1. breeding for looks only for showing in beauty contests
> 2. because a breed that gets popular gets bred by people who like them and get a M/F who want more for their friends and hopefully make a few bucks while they do it
> 3. people want to cash in on the demand ... and sell more
> 
> unfortunately i feel even "protection" and breeders/vendors may sometimes fall into the third category, because the demand is high now, and a lot don't meet the buyers standards and get dumped on the non PSD type markets as "pet only" to owners who can't handle them properly and some of those may get bred again irresponsibly and weaken the gene pool further .... but i hope i'm wrong here
> - but like any business, gotta keep the inventory as low as possible and that is especially true with canines no matter what type you're selling. at least in japan, the puppy farmers cull the ones that don't look "cute" enuff to sell, but that is another issue :-(
> - i doubt there are many if any working breeders that cull rather than sell :-(
> 
> unfortunately i think the decline of breed vitality is inevitable and unstoppable and i can't think of any breed at all that has gotten better and better the longer the breed has been bred ....as a pure breed.
> - anyone know of one that hasn't ??
> 
> a pure breed that has gotten better over time ?? like a good wine ???
> - none comes to my mind but maybe in huskies for the sled dog sports ?? but are they concerned with breed purity or are there crosses mixed in to improve performance ??
> Terrasita ??
> 
> but i also have confidence there are still good breeders of good working dogs in the states
> 
> for DON ... the states is probably the biggest dog ownership market in the world ... more dogs, more bad breedings equals weaker dogs ... but not because americans can't breed quality dogs; i feel they can and i think we have a few right on this list doing just that...
> 
> but as china prospers even more, look for them to have the worst impact on breed degradation....in most developed places they have at least stopped eating em and are keeping em as pets and household decorations.....dog sports have not taken off yet in any big way, but that too will probably happen eventually :-(
> - japan has done their best to ruin breeds, but it is a much smaller country compared to china
> ...just my .02


I think if you look at the history of working dogs--farmers, KNPV, etc., breed purity wasn't the main concern. I know working line BC folks that don't think a good pup should cost you more than $50 bucks and generally you wait for a friend to have a litter and he's happy to give you one. There was a guy in aussies--Erickson--Hanging Tree who went to Hangin Tree Cowdogs. They're mixed breeds but I've heard he has no problem placing them because they get the job done. We have a board member who says his herding dogs are "based on the BC." Sara posted an Australian who is pretty much saying in getting back to the old BCs, he wouldn't hesitate to add a little Kelpie. An occasional true outcross wouldn't bother me probably if its disclosed and if the product retains the base breed's traits. Within a gene pool of purebreds you can get so deep, you have no where to go to improve. I still can't believe supposedly working line bouvier people in Holland left the breed because of the ban against cropping and docking. How cosmetically ridiculous is that. 

There's working [LE, Military and I would add SAR and Herding] and there is sport [that includes sport herding as well as protection]. How many of them have difficulty affording good dogs? Dogs have become big business.

T


----------



## Ben Thompson

I was reading this article where Bart Bellon is being interviewed, he said the following: 

Are your dogs registered? No. The Belgians have for a long time mixed many breeds together in the Malinois. To me the Malinois is the working shepherd of Belgium. The dog I won the championships with in 1992, Flip, was a Malinois and German Shepherd mix. He was a very good dog. I think this is the best system for making really good working dogs. 

It sounds like he likes "type"' more then "breed" for his dogs. 

http://www.schutzhund-training.net/interviews/bartbellon.html


----------



## rick smith

that B Bellon interview by Ellis was an interesting read 

...this comment struck me as odd : "Do you socialize your puppies in public? No. I go only to the training field, in my car."

- that seemed like a strange philosophy even tho he seemed to be saying a good dog wouldn't need that kind of socializing ... i would still think a lot of dogs would have problems even getting a BH if they had never been in public and were only worked on a training field, especially the tie out with another dog walking past it within five paces, etc ??
- guessing he just simulates the "public" environment on the field ??


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> i would still think a lot of dogs would have problems even getting a BH if they had never been in public and were only worked on a training field, especially the tie out with another dog walking past it within five paces, etc


something tells me his OB is solid enough..  you are right though, alot of dogs would have problems, due to less than stellar training, I think moreso, than lack of socialization...


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

rick smith said:


> ...this comment struck me as odd : "Do you socialize your puppies in public? No. I go only to the training field, in my car."
> 
> - that seemed like a strange philosophy even tho he seemed to be saying a good dog wouldn't need that kind of socializing ... i would still think a lot of dogs would have problems even getting a BH if they had never been in public and were only worked on a training field, especially the tie out with another dog walking past it within five paces, etc ??
> - guessing he just simulates the "public" environment on the field ??


 
In the right club situation, there isn't a huge need for much outside socialization. Factor in the sheer size of some European clubs and the dog may meet more people at the club than many of our dogs meet with all the socialization in public we may do. Add in the environmental exposure that is done with Belgian Ring puppies at the club, and once again they are getting a lot of socializing, even just at the club. I can't speak for Bart's club but many clubs I know, here and in Europe, train with multiple dogs on the field at a time also. And you see pups hanging out next to the field during trials to. Unless the dog is overly nervous it can be enough. Even with an overly nervous dog it can be enough if all they are really expected to do is work on a trial field.


----------



## Christopher Smith

rick smith said:


> - that seemed like a strange philosophy even tho he seemed to be saying a good dog wouldn't need that kind of socializing ... i would still think a lot of dogs would have problems even getting a BH if they had never been in public and were only worked on a training field, especially the tie out with another dog walking past it within five paces, etc ??
> - guessing he just simulates the "public" environment on the field ??



First, don't believe everything you read.

Second, maybe his dogs would not pass a BH. So what? He dosen't do IPO.


----------



## will fernandez

I can guarantee he aint wasting his time on a average dog...any dog he picks will have all the tools for success before he starts the training.


----------



## Tracey Hughes

I don’t bring my dogs anywhere other then to the clubs I train and trial at and the vet. No problems with the BH so far (maybe I just jinxed myself now:-\” ).

But at both my clubs we have lots going on, multiple dogs on the field training etc. The way we train has the dog around lots of people all the time anyways. With proper OB it shouldn’t be a problem to pass a BH.

If a dog is overly nervous/aggressive it has no place in this sport IMO.


----------



## Jeff Wright

"In the right club situation, there isn't a huge need for much outside socialization."

Kari is dead on.
When I was able to hang around a KNPV club the young dogs got all the socialization they needed.
In fact I was astonished and delighted to see that the normal schedule was to show up let the younger dogs run around with they older club dogs the occasional kids while everyone visited for a about 15-20 min.
Then they were tied out with other dogs to permanent chains that were anchored on the edge of the field to watch what was going on.
After the end of the training , they again got to socialize with everyone human and canine and then it was into the trailer for a ride home.
A morning and evening walk on non training days and there ya go.


----------



## James Downey

There seems to be a dissparity on what the definition of Socialization is. First, most people want they dog to interact with people and other dogs, especially the pet dogs, they almost insist the dog make friends with everyone they see. 

Now I am sure there is benefit to taking a working dog and offering them exposure to the world. That is: just going places, possibly keeping the dog in drive or working, and just showing them the world. Almost like saying, "see that, it's none of your buisness, you work is your buisness."

I used to control my dogs access to the rest of the world very carefully. having that paranoid feeling of it's going to ruin my dog if the meet people or other dogs. Now, I don't worry so much. I am a pretty exciting owner, I control everything they want and have seen zero deteriment to them by being laxed if they interact with people.


----------



## Sara Waters

James Downey said:


> There seems to be a dissparity on what the definition of Socialization is. First, most people want they dog to interact with people and other dogs, especially the pet dogs, they almost insist the dog make friends with everyone they see.
> 
> Now I am sure there is benefit to taking a working dog and offering them exposure to the world. That is: just going places, possibly keeping the dog in drive or working, and just showing them the world. Almost like saying, "see that, it's none of your buisness, you work is your buisness."
> 
> I used to control my dogs access to the rest of the world very carefully. having that paranoid feeling of it's going to ruin my dog if the meet people or other dogs. Now, I don't worry so much. I am a pretty exciting owner, I control everything they want and have seen zero deteriment to them by being laxed if they interact with people.


I socialise my dogs to different environments as pups for that reason - they are familiar with scenarios that they encounter out and about and in the stimulating trialing environment, so nothing much surprises them. I want them to relax and not pay too much attention to the chaos around them, especially in the line up which with 4 rings on the go in close proximity usually turns into organised chaos with people like myself running multiple dogs.

At trials they know that their business is to work and I dont generally allow them to socialise and they dont expect to. I dont like them getting the idea that they can run around and play with other dogs at agility trials especially my very easily stimulated BC. 

When we are walking out and about, which is not often given where I live, I allow them to interact with other people and dogs where appropriate. I dont think allowing them to interact with other people and dogs is detrimental as long as you have their focus the minute you request it. I train a really solid recall in the prescence of other fast moving dogs. My dogs are well used to different types of people and generally are not particularly interested in them.


----------



## Sara Waters

I find it quite interesting that with Border collies, people will pay quite a lot of money for a sport bred dog when you can actually pick up a surplus working bred pup very often for quite a bit less money. The working bred collies and collie/kelpie crosses often make fab agility and obedience dogs. There are also good working pups that are perhaps a little bit busy to make a really good stock dog that will make very good agility dogs.


----------

