This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Sunsilver on 13 September 2008 - 16:09
Blitzen, I not only have no doubt that dogs OTHER than Shepherds crept into the mix, I have PROOF that they did! It was quite easy before the days of DNA. Even now, I remember a thread Captain Mike posted about his friend having his stud dog DNA'd and almost having a heart attack when the DNA studies showed the dog wasn't even purebred!
So, it's happened in the past and is still happening.
I also remember reading there was a certain genetic problem (wish I could recall what it was!) that had never appeared in the GSD genome before. Suddenly it cropped up in the bloodline of GSD's from a certain area of Europe. Interestingly enough, that part of Europe was home to a breed of herding dog which was well-known for producing this particular defect. Now, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what happened... 
by Blitzen on 13 September 2008 - 16:09
In the big picture all of this is interesting from an academic standpoint only. It is a study in genetics more than solid information about the breed. I didn't know about other breeds being introduced into the mix but have heard rumors that wolves were used by some 
. I think that has happened with many other breeds too. Did you notice the reference to Collie blood in the sheltie article? Not sure why they would do that deliberately since the big concern with shelties always seem to be keepng down the size. A better coat maybe? Go figure................
by wildstrobe on 13 September 2008 - 16:09
"The WUSV does not hold it for necessary with his members to communicate, also if one does not appeal to controversial, topical subjects and writes to the president in person. However, he must communicate! We write in 2008, nowadays public relations are capitalized. Where is the press agent if one needs him. There nothing might probably remain to him concealed. He has the information yes, then he must also report the press about that, and justify itself the general public, not in the slightest the club members.
Completely for the purposes of an uncompromising openness many dog sportsmen on different Internet forums have collected information and tries to interpret this. There remains naturally every reader leave to form his own opinion, indeed, does not help the association if it becomes burned what would be, however, his compelling duty. Nowadays one well wants to be informed.
It is not to be checked my task the information introduced in the forums for the truth salary. For it there are in the association enough committees, to committees, advisory boards and committees. And there are also higher authorities which certain reproaches must follow. I see it, however, very well as my obligation to notify as an active club member to make available the news a broader audience and to question the subjects. Shoot please not the ambassadors (messenger), these are the news which to you worries must prepare.
Whether this last case example is representative around him OR for a meanwhile usual practise, you yourselves must put out for yourselves. I would like to add only some short remarks: It must prepare big worries for us if to the point of the association such wars break out, top judges are concerned and even (former) federal breeding vantage point. Then the topical developments must be taken seriously very much.
Possibly they register what runs in the SV, they register what is if possible “ a current practise ”. Quite often it is whispered behind reproached hand about these methods. If the VIP's go in the association, however, each other in this way in the collar, one would almost have to accept, indeed, these methods would be quite usual. Anyway the association cannot act as his nose would bleed. The reproaches must be cleared completely. . However, in the interim the members have a claim to information, cannot tolerate it that is talked round the hot mash or at all is not communicated. And in view of this year's BSZS must be traded immediately.
I may point in this connection also briefly to my study: Quote “ the deck events in the shoot of the SV ”, and a short extract: “ And how the rumor kitchen bubbles! There would be connections between the top dog and the judges. It means: how would one get, otherwise, the top orders? Is what there in it? If there is friendship, it is a matter them of maintaining. The world of the German sheepherd is small, one knows himself. Now another step would be to go forward investigativ, to track down the connections of these few great breadwinners in the judicial offices. The animals had to be brought for the moment to the point. Who has directed which dog? Who has how much influence? Do the deck dog owners have influence on the association point? Who promotes the breeding of these or those kennels / deck dogs possibly strengthens? And above all the question should be cleared: how does the construction look then? If there is a triangular business (Tripartite): the dog belongs: Breeder holder judge? And the income is distributed fairly? Or how does this look? This could be a subject of an other study. ”
by wildstrobe on 13 September 2008 - 16:09
"Topically on the Internet discussed and partially documented attacks and reproaches, as a mirror of the if possible usual activities or shops in the association, these theses would rather confirm than deny. Absolutely must be able to be expected from the association that an intertemporal statement can be delivered (one has a press agent), with the promise in the membership that everything becomes gone on the reason. The SV members can be stultified no more. The biggest association of the world must be able to communicate with his base in a contemporary way and correctly. What does one wait for?
Which statement will also give always him OR in the eve of the winner's show of itself, she comes too late. Richly too late. And it will not be able to be checked. Only one statement of a public prosecutor him all reproaches of the table sweeps, the base can return the trust. And now this is not to be expected absolutely.
In my opinion it is also not usual or satisfactory that a "culprit" gives a talk. Rather his superiors AND the delegates (after consultation with her base) are asked to confirm the trust to him or to refuse. Asks itself in the same breath whether all reproaches already completely adjusted and the running inquiries were already put or were finished.
In this sense I wish all participants in the BSZS, nevertheless, a sportily successful and winner's show honest above all."
by djc on 13 September 2008 - 17:09
I have to disagree about Quanto's production! He WAS known for producing VERY good nerves and bite work! Pretty much on the same level as Mutz. He is also found in many working lines, proving that the group that was to be starting the working line segment of desention of that day, thought he was good enough to use for work as well as conformation. Canto on the other hand was used WAY too much for such a whimpy dog that had terrible nerves. Apparently, the "show" people of that day, liked his conformation best and disreguared his serious character faults. To me this was the beginning of the trouble for the "show" lines and the start of major widening of the "show"/"work" gap. Yes, Canto is found in some working line pedigrees, but he was quickly dropped after character problems started.
In examining the dogs from the beginning, over 100 years ago.... you can not seriously think that a dog from that long ago has much significance at all today???!!! It is good only for pointing to where some of the original problems came from and watching where some of those problems popped up again. BUT many of those problems have been over come by out crossing. IMHO we can again solve issues by doing the intense research in the lines we have today and look for the background to improve what we specificly are having problems with. NOT ALL GSD'S OF TODAY HAVE TERRIBLE PROBLEMS!! You all sound so pesimistic! To me there is no need to bring in different breeds. We have plenty of diversity in the working/show camp to draw from the good of each. That's OK that neither the hard line show or work camps will cross! There are those of us who are doing such research and making things happen for the better right now. Yes, there is a huge problem with over loading on dogs from the past and present, but there are STILL plenty of ways to make improvements with lines that are not so saturated. Namely work/show crosses. The majority of the hard work is found in researching where specific problems came from and staying away from those lines when breeding a dog with that background. Jante points to a dog named Ajax vom Rohnsaler Bach. Look him up in the data base! You will see a STRONG working line male with a solid diversified background, laden with excellent work production as well as SUPER conformation. He sure grabbed my eye! So much so that I am picking up a puppy from this breeding in a just a few short weeks- Ajax vom Röhnsaler Bach ( chUltra de L'Erkadyl (Scn just a few short weekshH3, FH1, Of course the goal is to bring all of these qualities into a breeding program to make great strides to bring back what a GSD was always ment to be. It is NOT hopeless! Many other breeders are doing the same things. To me the biggest problem lies with the "TRADITIONALISTS" who refuse to ackowlege that work show crosses can work to solve many of the issues plagueing the GSD of today. I firmly believe that NOW is the time to work to this end, because there ARE dogs in both camps, if you are willing to look for them, that have a good health AND work background to use as the new foundation dogs for serious improvement of the breed.
Debby
by jennie on 13 September 2008 - 17:09
The past is nothing we can do anything about, what we can do is to make sure the problems doesn´t escalate by breeding to much on to few dogs and so on, like has been done in the past. I don´t think the showline of todays have anything to add to the workinglines, there should be enough genetic material in the different workinglines.
by Blitzen on 13 September 2008 - 17:09
Debby, the genes of the of the foundation dogs are still with us today. They have been changed in some ways - some recessives have become dominants and there will always be mutations both good and bad to contend with. Of course they no longer breed true to the original type due to selective breeding and the likes of ever seeing another Roland or Courage from a showline or workingline breeding is very unlikely. My point was - there must be different foundation dogs in any pedigree to make it an outcross in the literal sense of the term. Many believe that no common ancestors in 5 generations indicate an outcrossed litter and that's probably a good rule of thumb from a practical viewpoint. It doesn't seem practical to research every breeding clear back to the beginning. IMO it would be very interesting to see COI's on sample workingline and showline pedigrees. Some may be breeding a lot closer that they realize. When the smoke clears it's the end results that matter to most, but blaming linbreeding for all the woes of the breed and crediting outcrossing for the successes may not be logical thinking if most of the dogs we think are outcrosses probably aren't.
Your new puppy souunds very nice. Good luck with him/her. You are right, there are many good dogs out there. I think that some of the best are probably right now lying under the shade tree in their owner's backyard waiting for that dumb rabbit to crawl under the fence 
by wildstrobe on 13 September 2008 - 17:09
And pls dont find solution in Belgium shepherds ,shilohs and Kings..lol..
by Gustav on 13 September 2008 - 18:09
Blitzen, I have no problem. I don't need to plug in Mutz's name when I owned a dog from Mutz's brother Meik in the seventies that I imported. I think I probably knew his pedigree before some people on this board were born! Hey ...you win, it is what you say, but if you talk to knowledgable people and read some of the GS Books(Willis, Lanting,) ,you will see that these dogs are considered foundation dogs for the showlines and workinglines in West German breeding today. Either way you win, but the infomation I gave was factual and I think others on this list would concur.
Debby, Quanto was better than Canto but in no way did he produce the strength of temperament that Mutz produced. Linebred Mutz stock is the basis of someof the working lines, Quanto did produce some dogs that worked well, but he has never been linebred on any line that consistently produced working line dogs (I'll define workinglines by performance if you want). Mutz is still very prominent in some of the better workinglines, Quanto is only an inclusion if he is in a workingline. Of course Quanto has been linebred out the wazoo in the high lines....if his genetic base is that strong why aren't any of his linebred lines "performance lines"???? Better than Quanto....yes, better than Mutz in temperament.....think not!
by djc on 13 September 2008 - 19:09
Your point is valid to an extent Blitzen. I agree with what you are saying, but I guess I just believe that there is more diversity brought down through the origninal dogs and their consequent progeny through the years. SOME of the lines down from them have solved the original problems. So even though today we have some of their influence, it is in research that we will find which breedings solved those original problems and try to search for those lines coming down as opposed to the others. ..As well as those that have less lining. Yes, it is scarey to see so many show dogs just PACKED with Q Arminius and others in just 5/6/7 generations! And some of the same in working lines with Fero, Harro, and the like. There are no perfect animals, and when the deck is stacked so tightly you can not help but have some of the original problems as well as new ones crop up. Yes, it VERY hard to do all of that research and not only that.. to FIND dogs who exhibit what we want to see in the background after the research is done. But they are out there.
The major problem I've seen with show/work crosses is that the consistancy is relatively low on pheno type. The show and working lines have been in persuit of their own pheno AND geno types in differing directions. Show lines HAVE successfully created consistant pheno type. Working lines, in general, have had a problem with this because they have much more often, used no common ancestry in 5 generations. Thus opening up the gene pool to so many combinations that consistancy was hard to find. But working line breeders in general do not care as much about pheno type conformation as they do geno type for working qualities. This of course is not across the board, but is never the less a problem for them in the over all picture of breed standard. MANY are striving for correcting this and a few have acheived it. Now show lines have other problems brought on by too much line breeding for consistant "type" and not worring so much about what other faults there are in the background of the line breeding. Like: oversize, poor hip production, and other health issues as well as poor character. That's not to say that some working lines do not have some of the same problems, but I believe them to be less frequent because of the less frequent line breeding. I also believe them to be much easier to research them and find where the problems lie. The hardest thing to research, for me, is working abilities. Here's why... even though it is best to observe the individual dog's abilities in person, up close and personal, this does not mean that that dog is producing himself as far as the work goes. Take the dog that shows fantastic nerve, hardness, fullness of grip, calmness and has the ulitimate combination of aggression and clear headedness, desire to please and intelligence with trainability and is social to boot. Everyone tends to flock to him for breeding. then all of the sudden it's realised that he is NOT producing himself. The problem there is to figure out why. Is it because he is not really as good as he appears but was raised perfectly and trained by the best? Essentially just an OK dog with good training? Then we have the dog that everyone is calling "crap" because he appears to have so many "issues" when it comes to the work. But then he produces some really great working dogs and seemingly on a consistant basis. Why??? Is it because of poor training? Or maybe an very heavy handed or abusive trainer? Or is it because he has just been bred to the "right" bitches? I myself have learned to sit back and watch. Watch for what a dog is producing and not only going by what he himself appears to be. Production is what is MOST valuable. Now before anyone takes that out of context, that does not discount all the research i
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
