
This is a placeholder text
Group text
by eichenluft on 20 October 2010 - 16:10
For me and my program, I look for excellent temperament, drive, nervestrength, and "work" in general first, then I look at structure, pedigree, pigment, and type - and I try to breed dogs that are excellent in the work and better than the parents in structure. Most of the dogs I breed are KKl-1 in structure, and most of the puppies I produce are the same, while maintaining everything necessary to be excellent for working.
I don't see why anyone would choose to use an "ugly" dog when there are so many dogs correct in structure that are also excellent in the work. There are many choices to make so no reason to "settle for less".
Here are the pictures I was going to post in the first post. V-Bandit v Wolfsheim Schh3,FH,KKl-1 picture taken in Germany (2 years old) yes I believe the topline is slightly edited.

by Tantra on 20 October 2010 - 16:10

by KellyJ on 20 October 2010 - 16:10
"That dog does not look very good."
Surely you are not talking about Bandit! They dont come much better than him!by eichenluft on 20 October 2010 - 18:10


by Red Sable on 20 October 2010 - 18:10

by BlackthornGSD on 20 October 2010 - 19:10
by StephanieJ on 20 October 2010 - 19:10
@Johan-Totally agree with your assessment re. functional form. It bothers me that so-called working line enthusiast buy into the conformation crappola. I say handsome is as handsome does. Furthermore I suggest that V conformation hinders working ability, both in structure and in the associated poor temperaments that are now genetically linked to these lines. Working line breeders would do well to pay attention to what is important in the dog; NOT what he looks like but what is in his head and his heart.

by Jenni78 on 20 October 2010 - 19:10

by BlackthornGSD on 20 October 2010 - 19:10
It's a very poor idea to form one's impression of a dog based on one picture, particularly when the picture is heavily retouched. In this case, there's plenty of material available to get an idea of what the dog really looks like.
by eichenluft on 20 October 2010 - 20:10
I said the first photo was retouched. In the topline - not the rear assembly. It's all in the way the dog is stacked and photographed. The second photo he is standing more naturally and the photo is not retouched - still the same dog, and the dog is V in structure and in the work, both proven not by me, but by several DIFFERENT SV judges and Koermeisters.
molly
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top