SV to Reinstate Long Coats in 2010 - Page 2

I agree Cate, My LSC will come in from a romp in the mud and be dry within 15 minutes.  Then a quick shake and all that mud falls to the floor and she is as good as new.  She does have a slight prblem with cockleburrs getting into her tail and back legs but most dogs do.

Sibersee

           Hope you dont mind , I was too lazy to right it all again,copy / paste is faster. Anyway thanks for the info on the subject, truly worth to know whats going down with this issue. Take care,

Also Chris!!!!!!!

well i hope they do there are some very well constucted dogs that are long coated .

YAAY!

Will there even BE a german shepherd in 2010?

Stephanitz was president of the SV until his death in 1936, during which time the long coat was determined to be undesireable due to being "greatly diminished in weatherproofing and utility".  The founder saw fit to change his mind by disallowing longcoats, and with some sense of reasoning behind it.  But, nowhere did he say "make my dog a show-dog", and working ablility is what all german shepherds should be measured against.

I'm in favor of a break-off in the breed, where those bred for appearance's sake, and lack the ability/utility to perform can be called "wannabe shepherds".  They could even be backcrossed to "german shepherds" once in a while to improve diversity.  For those in favor of longcoats, please don't take insult because I don't know many (or any), I'm just saying show the proof.  There's some great workinglines carrying the gene, if not the phenotype, and I hope you'd select from that breeding stock.

I did not at all mean to associate long coats with weak nerves, I just don't see the point of changing a standard that isn't followed anyway.  I'm going to go found my own breed now, and carve its standard into stone tablets (no ammendments allowed).  Just being cynical.

They still won't do well in show, but would be allowed to compete in the BSP again, eligible for the Korung.

SS

I had a SLC that loved to work and had a temperament to die for.  Not real heavy long hair, and plenty of undercoat.   Never showed him in conformation for obvious reasons, but he had a very nice build (as would be reasonably expected from his pedigree). 

He was a littermate to this dog: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/395790.html

The LC with no undercoat obviously is disadvantaged in severe weather, but should not be an issue with a SLC. 

Daryle,  I've been a collector of old standards for quite some time - because standards do change with time for a variety of reasons including political. I think you need to get your historical facts right and doing so may put this in a different perspective.

First of all there had ALWAYS been distinction between long coats with and without an undercoat.  Those without an undercoat have always been undesireable. Your statement  "Stephanitz was president of the SV until his death in 1936, during which time the long coat was determined to be undesireable due to being "greatly diminished in weatherproofing and utility".  The founder saw fit to change his mind by disallowing longcoats, and with some sense of reasoning behind it. is wrong on several accounts.  Long coats with undercoat were allowed to work, trial show AND KKl1 until the 60's ( I think is was 1968 but may be wrong on the year) when they were moved to KKl2 status. 

It was only in 1999 that long coats with undercoat where disqualified. My personal opinion is that this was a money based decision and nothing more. The SV had been extremely successful from the Martin era on in exporting the system worldwide. Prior to that time individual dogs were exported but most countries had developed a base of "home grown" GSDs that these imports were mixed with.  By exporting the "system" and most importantly by controlling the judging of dogs within that system by the use of SV judges, there was a commercialization of the breed that exceeded anything prior. This encourage the wholesale importing of dogs IF you wanted a dog that would go V or VA since for many decades the SV judges only put up imports essentially denigrating "home breds" ( even tho out of import stock) as unworthy. I believe it took 30 years in the US before the first "home grown"( but of course from import parents) was granted VA status here in the U.S. The problem was they were so succesful in this wholesale exportation of the system and dogs that by the late 90's they had flooded the market AND the natives were getting restless about not being able to achieve VA status in their own countries at least . What to do What to do?  By disqualifying coats from the breeding population you essentially immediately reduced your breeding population by about 25% ( the penetrance w/in the breed) thus making the remaining dogs that much more valuable (basic economics - reduce supply - raise prices)

What has happened is that old bugaboo of "Unexpected Consequences".  What the SV failed to predict/ see was the fondness some in the breed and more importantly in the general public had for longcoats. I can not tell you the number of people I know that experienced exactly what  Dash said  "I had a SLC that loved to work and had a temperament to die for".  In addition there are at least some people in the breed that when we look at the vast variety of inheritable diseases w/in the GSD genome ( EPI, epilepsy, heart problems, DM, autoimmune issues etc etc etc) do not see a healthy LC with great temperament as a problem that needed to be addressed. So the SV probably for porfit reasons tried to eliminate something that people liked and really wasn't doing much harm to the breed that I can see. What they should have been able to foresee is that when you ban something there is always a group of people willing to step forward and declare it "rare" and make a buck on it. All they had to do was look back historically at what happened with whites in the 50s and 60s. So they created their own pickle. On another thread there had been a discussion about the declining SV registrations. They  apparently have dropped by about a third over the last decade. While I know that at least some of that is due to the growing influence of the Green Party and their Animal Rights cohorts creating an ever increasing restritive environment to the owning and training of animals, I suspect a big chunk ( maybe 25% heh) was lost due to people moving over to LC registries.

By the way in 1938 there was a standard change - the beginning of the elimination of white but interestingly the one white that was STILL ALLOWED to be registered was a white longcoat. Hmm. Any SV living historians know the answer to why? Perhaps this was related to the SV having an open registry when it came to active herding dogs?  I have been told that the open registry was maintained until the 1950s which is why in the early years it was a long tedious process to get AKC registration on an imported dog BUT I do not have proof of this or when the registry actually became a closed registry so can not say. ( Chris any luck on the German boards finding out about this?)

Finally just a point of information - one of the few national breed clubs to resist the disqualication of long coats with undercoat was the GSDCA.

So as cynical as it may sound - just sounds like the SV is trying to put the genie back in the bottle. People were ok w/ a kkl2 status but it sounds like the SV created a monster that will no longer be satisfied with second class citizenship.

In the spirit of full disclosure. I have had GSDs since 1963 and in all  that time only 1 of my dogs was a LC (w/ undercoat). He was a fantastic herding dog w/ great work ethic and temperament to die for. I've also know a few that friends have had and personally have seen with most of them there is an extra willingness that creates a very special partnership. I certainly fall into the group that thinks a SLC was not a problem that needed to be fixed especially when the breed faces much more serious issues. I can understand putting them into KKL2 status because as much as I loved my guy the reality is a LC even a SLC just is not as weather resistant as a normal coat and certainly is tends to attact more burrs etc.

Thanks TIG, a more recent revision helps explain why the recessive gene is still present in today's bloodlines.  I had doubted the authenticity of a typewritten pedigree that a relative had showed me, she had much pride for her longcoat from the 60's, and I respectfully held my tongue.  I reviewed some history of dogs in the 30's to 50's, that referred to their longcoats as "faults", so I guess it was easy to assume the change was early in the breed's history.  I didn't grow up with gsd's, and I am not yet middle aged, myself.  The original standard written in 1899 was revised in 1901, 1909, 1930, 1961, 1976, and 1991.  What changes have been made would be interesting to see, I think.