How many of you think Working Lines are ugly?

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by jc.carroll on 26 November 2007 - 15:11

Okay, in response to SchHBabe's statement I'll say it: "yup those straight-backed, hard-hitting dogs got hit with the ugly stick" and I Love Them For IT!

Working line GSDs aren't supposed to be pretty, if they were they'd be showline shepherds. I love the big course heads, straight backs, and perfect triangle ears. (I don't care for the excessively large ears on some of the show-line dogs... makes them look like fruit-bats to me.)

One of my favorite examples of a working line GSD:

by GoldenElk on 26 November 2007 - 16:11

jc.caroll, I don't think the WL's are "suppose" to be ugly, but being pretty isn't and shouldn't be their primary attribute. For me, if the dog is a working line that is beautiful beautifully structured, that is a heavenly combo and no other type of shepherd can touch it (for me).

The boy you posted isn't "flashy" but if he's worth his salt I bet his temperament is stable, his courage is unshakeable and he can work from sun up to sun down and that is the true mark of a working breed.

by harddawg on 26 November 2007 - 16:11

Working lines are hot!!!

by Jamille on 26 November 2007 - 17:11

Marty

Isn't that male Gorgeous !!! I was just recently told about him , and am seriously considering him for my female.

Just Stunning !!

by Trafalgar on 26 November 2007 - 18:11

Even a question, such as one posed in the title of this thread, which SEEMS simple opens up a conversation of multi-faceted complexity. Allowing for the fact that few, IF ANY, people are capable of suspending all their caution controlled filters (i.e. "denial") I do believe I can HONESTLY say that there are some physical characteristics I like and some I dislike MORE than I can identify "lines" I think are good looking or homely. I have NO trouble articulating what I like: Relatively short backs Heads that have perceptable stops and perceptable chins (some call these Akita heads, I don't). Enough coat that dog doesn't appear "slick" like a hound. A head that is not proportinately small. A female that is masculine looking (compared to other females). I'm one of the few GSD people I know who has very little, if any, color preference. I also can tell when something looks ugly to me: Long Backs Long legs with very light bone Spongy pasterns Roach backs, or extremely sloping croups Extreme angulation Longcoats Chinless, "Andy Gump" type heads. But being able to identify physical characteristics that one likes or dislikes has limited use, don't you think? Certainly, courage, trainability and biddability mean more. Certainly, physical ability means more. Certainly longevity and sanity mean more. Why is physical type so bloody important in the dog world? Is it because MOSTpeople would have a hard time distinguishing breeds based on ability and character? Perhaps, PHYSICALITY, being so easy to identify, is what's left to the indiscriminate dog lover? IMO, NONE of the many facets of this discussion are unique to the world of GSD. The fact remains that the VAST number of people relate to dogs and evaluate dogs base on how they look - their shape, their body parts, their movement. All physical things. This is how it is with all breeds. Ask anyone off the street: "Which dog breeds do you like?" The vast majority of people will answer with the names of breeds that they like the LOOK of. Some - often the MOST naive - will espouse stereotypes about character and we would only be able to sigh at the lack of reality in their descriptions. "I love German Shepherds cause they're so loyal, etc..." AT LEAST they're not saying " I love German Shepherds because they're so RED". Go figure.