What do you look for in a Stud Working Dog? - Page 1

Reading some of the other post a question came to my mind; What do people look for in a "Working Stud Dog"? I'm sure different Breeders have different concepts with reguards to the desired traits of the Stud. For example some breeders would prefer a mediocre working dog with a Breed Survey over a Top working dog without a breed Survey. Nothing wrong either way, it is just the opinion of the breeder as what is more important. What I would like to know is the overall thoughts on this subject among those on this board. Personally, I prefer dogs that are strong in the work. Then I go from there to see if the dogs have certified hips, and then if they have decent quality in conformation. SG is fine with me, that is a dog that meets the standard. But these are just my thoughts, and I don't have any issues with breeders that put more weight on the conformation side. It really boils down to individual visions of the GSD. No one can be wrong here; your vision is your vision. In my vision no dog that constantly score below SG in trials would be breed, I know that I would not want a puppy from such a dog. But I understand how some people would consider such a dog with solid conformation would be good for the Breed. I am just curious how breeders in general come down on this issue. Please feel free to share your views and the reasons for such views. However, let's try to avoid bashing others with oppossing views.

wardawg, I love a dog that is stong in the work but must be clear in head. With liabilities the way they are and the increasing negative breed specific legislation, I cannot afford to have a "high risk" on my property nor can anyone else. Character and temperament are an absolute must. This breed is revered to fit many diversified roles from seeing eye, Companion, SAR and Police work etc. I look at structure (and that the bone is certified), and of course DNA (because I NEED to know the dog is who he should be). But then I look back to see where he / she came from to know what I should be able to expect will come later. There is a lot of history behind this breed and more important than any money made is that the integrity of the quality of the breed is the primary focus. I believe it is about the "Total Dog" not just one that bites, OR looks good OR breeds. Just my thoughts.

With regards to scores, I would look to see if there is a genetic basis for the scores - in other words, did the dog score poorly because of not being with a top trainer/handler? Or did the dog score well because the trainer went to extreme methods? I would also give preference to a HOT titled dog, as the owner can actually talk about and even show how the dog works with a greater understanding of the dog and how he developed. I would actually want to see the dog work all three phases, not just look at the scorebook. I would choose a dog that has scores in all three phases that are close to each other, over a dog that tracks at 70 and bites at 100. But that's just me, in my "perfect" world. I'm sure you'll get a million opinions...Obviously temperment, health, structure and all those other things are important too.

Look at what he has produced many dogs have good scores, WUSV/BSP, etc., excellent pedigree, good hips, good temperament, excellent bite work but do they produce themselves? That is what to re search the offspring. Some of the top dogs in the world are not good producers and some dogs like Nessel not famous but what a producer when he was living.

Well, in today's world of dog training I don't believe "Top Trainers" have much of an advantage. Maybe in regards to time, but the owner handler can do pretty close to the same with any ability to train over time. The big difference is that "Top Trainers" find Top dogs. By "Extreme" do you mean training daily? I know that might sound "extreme" to some.

i would agree with kathy p that clarity in a stud would be one of the first things i'd look for. scores are nice, but they are not entirely genetic. training is a huge part of the scores. also, the strengths and weaknesses of the female must be considered in choosing a male. the best scenario would be a male and female who compliment each other perfectly in structure, character and working abilities.

OK that is a good trait, I agree. "Clarity" is a good trait. However, would it be true that when comparing dogs the ones with "Clarity" would out score the ones without "Clarity"? OK we can agree that scores are not entirely genetic. I do believe than scores can shed a lot of light on the genetics of a dog. A dog can not V at any phase without good genetics in that phase. Any dog that can SG overall in all 3 phases has some good genetics. However a dog that continues to struggle on the field will have some genetic reasons for doing so. Of coarse a dog might do 10 points better with this trainer verses that trainer, but overall Schutzhund is a test of the dog's genetics more so than the training. Maybe at a club trial it might be a little more equal genetics and training, but at National events the dog's genetics is what seperates the good ones from the weak ones.

Question for those that do a good bit of breeding. How do you separate the dog from the training, and the training from the dog? Is there anyone here that will breed to the dog and not the training. I think that you can get an overall since of a dog at a trial but w/ out seeing him train several times how do you know what is training and what is the dog? using a scale of 1- 10 (ten being the best dog), if 10 random people who have titled several dogs were given a dog at a 9.5 and Gary, Wallace Payne, Ivan, debbie Zappia where given a dog at a 7.5, chances are they beat most 95% of the time, but that doesnt mean they have the better dog. they are just better trainers. I understand that dogs from a male that is 25x sch3 and on the world team sells faster and perhaps for more money, but im trying to figure out how the general breeding population balances that w/ identifing the best stud for thier breeding program. It seems to me that Mink and Troll would still have been great producers if they were sheep herders, junk yard dogs or lived their lives as junk yard dogs.

Wallace, Gary, Debbie, nor Ivan can make a dog what it is not. What these trainers do is identify the top dogs and that is what they compete with. I believe that scores represent pretty close to the dog's genetic ability in most cases. Maybe the top trainers could get another 5 precent better scores. And in a trial that is a huge difference. If you were to get 270, which is an SG score, maybe a top trianer could get 283 with the same dog. That is a 5 precent difference, but both are SG scores. Both scores are in the same range, both show the dog's ability.

so if im reading correctly, you are saying that a good dog can overcome piss poor training and "V"? Wallace Payne will typically score 97 - 100 in protecton, are you saying that an average trainer would score 95 - 97 in protection at national events. The reason i ask these questions is because ive seen several very nice dogs w/ fundamentally bad training. By this i mean handler who has a dog that forges really bad, yet continues to make drive w/ the toy, spinning to the right and rewarding from the right hand. causing the dog to forge even more because that is where is reward comes from. Or, someone who tracks their dog w/ out knowing where the tack is, allowing the dog to just wander resulting in either a lack of understanding or tracking or a lack of commitment to the track. (there is a time and place to let you dog work out the problems on the track, but IMO if you dont know where the track is you cant praise or correct your dog) I'd be willing to say there are maybe 50 - 75 dogs that are capable of winning the USA nationals, it seems like there are only 3 - 5 trainers who win. IMO it all comes down to training, good training can make a good dog great, and a great dog Sh*t. Just my 2 cents