training a badass dog - Page 5

BW and Baer
oh you left out allergies , gastrointestinal and the occassional heart problems that show up time to time.

You think you have it all known . So explain this : 20 years ago many GS over sized measurably in several countries , here in USA , Germany were getting VA ratings . The organizations of BOTH countries new this , THE SV KNEW this. ! they knew they were out of STANDARD ! Did nothing about it . So , WHY .. Just why ask yourself.

But over sizing , knowingly , permissively for 20+ years continued on . Breeding dog outsize the standard. The Internet came along ya , everybody GS educated knew. , Still , ,the situation continued. This is a undeniable fact Baer. , over sized VA GSs .This fact is non arguable and validated. WHY . Because last year RUMOR has  it ,  I repeat RUNMOR has  it   , in final admittance of this practice due to people complaining for years, , the SV was going to put the idea to vote that ALL over sized GS would no longer be able to be bred. . Even GS lightly over the Standard for height , would not be allowed to be bred. So , let me ask rhetorically again , why , out of the Standard , did the SV and here in the USA that was allowed to go on ... and Rhetorically why all of a sudden last year , the SV decide differently? I won't dare state what i believe all the reasoning [ and more than one] was /is.

Many people now became upset with this notion to to be brought up for a vote. I can understand why. Although this vote was far as I know never goten to the floor to be   voted on . The SV changed it's mind / So ? continue to breed oversize GS ?  This is as far as I know. 

      One logistical reason that the vote never came to the floor is that there are many many Great super GS that are over sized and if they were not allowed to be bred , that would have a dire , major impact on the GS breed. What essentially would happen is that many good genetic would have instantly have been eliminated from the breed , the gene pool would have been greatly impacted , and diminished .

Ok , so ask yourself , aside from the fact that this should have been addressed years ago and wasn't , why now ? The SV , obviously understood what I wrote. most of the readers would have known the results of bringing this to a vote in current day . So what was the reasoning or motivation for the SV to start to think otherwise? Why when they understood the possible affects and effects would they even think about enforcing the size standard in breeding practices now ? Again I refrain from givong my thought. but , use some common sense , THINK.

BW , Baer made a list , isn't that enough [ or maybe you asked and her post got placed ahead of yours , so sorry then , ]

Baer.
With kind respect explain to everybody what is going on here with the over size GS matter and the SV and as well , the USA Organizations .

Baer. believe and think what you will or will not . What's it to me. And what is it to you what I think , know , believe? Let other people likewise decide for themselves. . You already validated the health issues. , your list not mine . need not say more , nor debate or argue with you ..I don't know what your kissue is about what I write. You validated ther rampant health issues. When they started to exist is irrelevent. All that means the stuff happened sooner than later.

Only to set the record straight - during the "thriving" 50s/60s a huge number of German Shepherd Dogs had HD and back problems, week ears, testicle and teeth problems...a lot of other deseases were not detectable during that time (!).

The seize is a problem since WW2, not "for 20 years +", and over the decades there have been a lot of attempts to do something against overseized dogs, not "last year"...

Personally I don´t think

"... that there are many many Great super GS that are over sized and if they were not allowed to be bred , that would have a dire , major impact on the GS breed " -

our breed as a whole does have a lot of outstanding dogs that are "within standard seize".

Think about it - thousands of thousands of puppies born year after year - worldwide - but most only the overseized dogs are "outstanding" ? The VA dogs almost exclusively are out of studs used 100s of times, but only the overseized sons and daughters are "outstanding" ? All the good competitors of the BSP are overseized? Only they do carry special genes? Nonsense.

SV is an organisation, but this organisation is run by people who tend to make decisions according to their personal favor, not always according to the favor of the breed.

People love overseized, thick boned, heavy German Shepherd Dogs; they look impressive - and as long as outside of Europe most people don´t train their dogs ( and may recognize that too big dogs are not the best working dogs ) the status quo won´t change. Buyers get what they want, the breeders too ( money ).

It´s up to every single breeder to breed according to the standard; and it´s up to every single buyer to ask for puppies out of healthy, fitting to the standard, able to work parents -

but as long as buyers are mostly interested in impressive looking pets breeders will breed what sells best...

RAMPANT and EXISTING are two different things.

Diseases and issues were always there, today we have the internet where people that have dogs with such issues can come together and make it seem like the problem is bigger than it actually is. Make a thread about allergies, 20 people will comment about their dog's allergies...the other 1000 don't say anything because their dogs are find and don't have them. Happens with EVERY SINGLE disease/problem that a canine can get.

If you really do have 30 years of experience (which I doubt) you'd realize that the amount of information you had 30 years ago about dogs was a drop in the bucket compared to what we get today. The majority of the information we receive today comes from "pet owners" who don't have any skin in the game and don't care about pissing anyone off. They'll just talk about their dogs, share pedigrees, and don't realize the implications of saying negative things about their dogs in public forums. Back in the day...that would never happen because anyone "involved" would never cross paths with the regular people like they get to today through forums and other internet venues.

There have been many past posts noting that in fact American breeders are not all that open about problems in their kennels, or very co-operative about dealing with them. This is something Blitzen, for one, commented strongly about. Baerenfangs Erbe must have got lucky when she found (page 3) that she "went through culture shock realising how much more open and honest breeders are in the US...Back in Germany people told you face to face, but none would have put it on the Internet ..."

In the UK the GSD community has always taken pride in how open in discussion they are, and perhaps more importantly how they have been collectively active in trying to DO something about HD / Haemo A / Epilepsy / Anal Furunculosis (PA), etc. But I have seen this fade over the past couple of decades, it seems less the case today (the 'modern world' for you ?). And certainly I can recall conversations and articles about excess height and the SV's "turning a blind eye"  to use of the 'elastic measuring stick'.  Also discussions about the SV not being so willing to talk about Haemophilia, Epilepsy etc as it might !

None of us knows ALL the individual German breeders' opinions on these issues, whether they really line up with the stance of the SV or mutter darkly against some decisions (but there hasn't been a coup !).  It is most likely that there are differences with the ruling body, just as there are between UK breeders and their Clubs,  and Americans with the GSDCA etc.

 

Certainly there was a feeling here for some time that the SV had been overly

generous in regard to VA ratings and oversized dogs.  That did not seem to stop any British breeder who had an oversize dog breeding from it, or with the top German studs.  Part of that problem is the KC (and AKC) attitude : "Go on, breed anything you like"; although if the SV has ("secretly") been taking a similar view, it is hardly a 'plus', is it ?  Susie, whether that was last year / only over the last 20 years / goes back 30 years and more, the "lot of attempts to do something against oversized dogs" haven't been too successful, have they ? Any more than some similar UK attempts.  And yes, here in the UK we did hear about a proposal that there was to be an SV vote on the size question ... and then there wasn't one.  And yes, there was some UK speculation about why that happened.  I don't feel qualified to reach any conclusion.  Maybe it's something to do with the bigger breeders wanting to keep control in the SV, maybe it's something about profits ?

Maybe Centurian will relent and spell out for us in plain terms & detail what he meant ?

There are an awfully  large number of 'too big' dogs in the world, a "sizeable minority" (even if that is comparitively few in the total number of the GSD in the whole world).  Susie is right about the popularity factor, big dogs SELL, so big dogs get BRED. From the sports and PPD novices, who own and breed them because they are convinced heavy man-stoppers work better (even though they tend NOT to become world-class IPO competitors !) to the heavy-headed fashion victims in China (which always seem to be coupled with huge bodies).  Having quite a few 'too tall' dogs making VA or high Vs cannot have helped the wider picture. Who knows exactly how the 'numbers game' pans out, with so many GSDs everywhere ?  One of the truly "rampant" problems - though not a medical condition - is that everybody looks at the wider position from their own 'corner' of the canine world.  Showbreeders for example think of the breed first in terms of whatever is uppermost in the Show population at any given time.  Few take a much wider overview.

Bav : IMHO we DO have more information about the diseases & conditions found in the breed today than we did 20-30 years ago. Medical knowlege has progressed in that time, and certainly the scope and speed of communications has improved. It was ALWAYS about owners (in general, not just 'pet' owners)

giving information. More than it was kennel owners saying "Look what I've bred here, chaps."  Although some breeders - for instance my own mentor who made public, and stopped, a new Haemo mutation - did volunteer information as things happened, and if you are a good, clued up breeder who has suspicions, you stop using that dog / matings; mostly feedback comes from owners because dogs are mostly sold rather than run-on and it is only as they mature that conditions come to light and people report on their Vets' findings etc.

Lastly, on something else Centurian posted, Susie said:  "after 30 years no good trainer / club / town would mind being mentioned".  But IF that trainer ('good' or otherwise) was associated with a breeder of longstanding reputation (not everyone quits after 5 years), and something was said about their breeding or training practises, or just the general way the dogs were kept, or some paper work that was badly wrong, then its possible "words could hurt them".  Breeders got accidentally tarnished and lost money on unregisterable litters when the Bedwins scams went down, it wasn't just Malcolm Griffiths who was punished.

Just a thought !