Old school German Shepherds - Page 23

apple: Also, the best description I have heard of old school GSDs is that they are mistrustful of strangers and good with the family and children.


Sounds like the dogs I select for.

I think that is where some breeders miss the boat. Mistrust can be a useful trait, but it has to paired with a confident dog with solid nerves and some discernment. It depends on a breeder's goal and what a buyer wants in a dog. Some dogs can be very social and not mistrustful with solid nerves and discernment and still be man stoppers. I think the mistrustful dog is better as a property protection dog, but social dogs can be trained for the same purpose, it just doesn't come as naturally.

In case all those "old school" GSDS would have been that child friendly, there would have been no reason for parents to tell children "don't touch strange dogs" for decades...( it's a pity children don't learn this any more ).

What about all those sharp junk yard dogs in the 60s/70s ???
What about all those shy/timid dogs that somehow survived in the backyards?
What about the sharp/shy chain dogs at the farms?

I am sorry, but my memory tells me there have been a lot of dogs with major temperament problems in the past ( not even mentioning major health problems ), I remember when dogs not fitting the standard were shot or simply vanished....

Does anybody really believe the dogs of the past have been better?
Owners tended to be more knowledgeable, parents knew better, the dogs were not forced to live in town, people didn't believe in Rintintin...

Susie, 'dogs were not *forced* to live in town'

Wow. So according to life in Germany, which is your experience, towns were /are so horrific so to not be fit for even a dog to live there.

Well, thank God, life in towns in the USA in the past and now are not so horrible that its detrimental for a dog to be *forced* to live with their human family in town.

I feel for you, Susie, that your country is so horrible so's to not be fit for a dog to live in your towns.

After all, it's not like your *forcing* an elephant to live in * town* .

Joanro, you don't get my point, and I don't know how to express better .
Guess, I should leave it.

Susie,
I was referring to well bred dogs and the traditional breeds bred for military and police service. Because of the large numbers of poorly bred GSDs there has been and will be very many with temperament issues. Also, times have changed. Society is more litigious and dog bites are taken much more seriously. In some of the Eastern bloc countries they didn't have to worry about getting sued because the government owned many of the dogs. True social aggression has largely been bred out because of liability issues. And it can be difficult to assess if a dog has the trait of social aggression, which has its place, or if a dog is thin nerved, overly sharp, etc.

Apple, your description doesn't fit to the here stated mentality of "old school" GSDs.
Those dogs didn't bite without reason ( human reason ! ), all of them were well tempered, they didn't have thin nerves at all, and none of them have been sharp... ( sarcasm off ).

Social aggression? For the last 40 years my dogs took very good care of house, child, property- most of them shitty showlines...

Susie .... that is a key point that you bring up . I use the terminology 'context, as dogs and animals are 'context specific learners '. Yes ... people , dogs do generalize BUT they are poor generalizers compared to other animals . e.g , terms of the wise : 'copy cats ',' monkey see ,monkey do ' ...

And Susie I second what you stated : dogs do things for reasons and with purpose .
Having said that : to reply to those that wrote about handler aggression. If a dog turns and bites the handler because it was abused and punished. [ punished meaning physically cause harm to ] That is not handler aggression - that is a dog simply protecting itself from being unfairly being harmed or possibly injured . That is a whole different concept than a dog being a protest biter because it does not want to take the direction of a human , wants to dominate and lord it over a human , or transfers aggression from one place onto that human /owner during protection work.

I went to a Ring trial 17 years ago . A lady was practicing before her trial with an e collar. She zapped the hell out of her GS and he turned around , jumped on her and bit her hard in the arm . Was that handler aggression .. certainly not ! I wrote we need to look at dogs in context , and ascertain the appropriateness of , the quality of and the quantity of that specific behavior. The dog was a very nice dog the handler didn't have suitable mentality .. that was the problem .. not the dog !

I agree with Susie .. The GS Standard calls for a GS to amiable yet aloof. It does not say that the dog should have mistrust or high suspicion level without 'reason'. If we give that dog a reason / purpose , that is a whole different context , scenario , situation ... A dog that wants to bite a person because they simply are a person is a very very dangerous canine and personally no use to me.

Have I had PP dogs that I trained to be suspicious , of course I have . But they increase their suspicion under certain contexts /circumstances . Liker some on pointing a gun at me .. This dog that I trained could discern someone tapping me as a friendly gesture or a handshake to greet me , as opposed to a hand coming to me to cause me harm . Truthfully , for novices : a dog should never ever ever undertake a cause to bite someone unless they have to protect itself , your children or you , a some other viable , rational , reason .
And .. a dog like that should have the correct mentality and genetics because if it does not , it can't discern and control itself with you ... believe me , you are going to have a very dangerous dog on your hands. and you are going to get into trouble !

???

I think this stuff is being dissected to death