FAULTS - Page 2

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Blitzen on 02 January 2008 - 20:01

IMO there is no greater fault in any working dog than bad feet. A dog is only as good as his/her feet and if they are bad nothing else really matters in the big picture.


by dcw on 03 January 2008 - 00:01

If you work with dogs much, it soon becomes evident that some are confident and have the ability to handle different situations or pressures, while others do not.  One thing working dog people are much concerned with is the ability for the dog to handle pressure under stress.   For example, a while back I was testing a police officer's dog.  The officer wanted me to test the working qualities of the dog.  On a tie out, I came from behind a tree, and made much of a "presence."  I threatened the dog, and slowly advanced toward him.  He barked defensively, and started backing up.  His "nerves" were not  as strong as they could have been.  Other dogs would be in my face if I were  to threaten them in such a way.  It doesn't mean this dog could not be trained and titled.  He actually had a forceful grip.  But I would not work him in such a way again (or not for a long time), but rather in prey.  I could give you many examples of situations where a dogs genetic nerve structure caused him to not be able to handle pressure situations.  You see this sometimes when a dog backs away from stick hits, backs up when people come near, etc.  There is a lot of information online about nerve in dogs, and some of those people can explain it much better than me.  dcw


by Nancy on 03 January 2008 - 03:01

Asides from the ones mentioned.........

There are way too many fear-agressive nerve bag shepherds.

Then structural faults that impair working abiity.

I don't know why the eye color thing is in the standards ...................... why does it matter?  I know he would be faulted for them but I think the lighter eyes are lovely on the right dog.

 


iluvmyGSD

by iluvmyGSD on 03 January 2008 - 15:01

thanks again for the help eveyone

NANCY--- lol, i agree...

i've also wondered about this>>>I don't know why the eye color thing is in the standards ...................... why does it matter? 

but i think it's suppose to show something about poor pigment? or the possiablity for it? which is why it confusing for me on boss, someone once commented that it's unusual to see  light eyes on a dog with a dark mask....

i do like the dark eyes but i also love his light eyes, maybe im bias..lol....but  i've had lots of comments on the intense look in his eyes..piercing gaze....i think thats due to the lighter eyes against the dark mask....you can see his pic here if you want....

Boss Von Hogg Phelps pedigree information


by Nancy on 03 January 2008 - 16:01

I realize standards are standards but understanding the significance of deviaitons from the standard influences future breeding.  Most of the dogs I have seen with lighter eyes are Czech / DDR very dark sables.

This is one of those questions - is it a lack of pigment or just a color?  I know my dog is very deeply pigmented if you count eyes, nose, nails, skin, inside mouth .......

Was the standard aesthetic of functional?  If functional what is it?

What does pigment have to do with health or workability of dog? - The only thing I have heard is a correlation between pigment and scenting ability but I have never seen anything to back that up (and a lot of hunting dogs have light pigment)

Why do wild canids typically have light eyes?


by Nancy on 03 January 2008 - 16:01

I am not one arguing that we can pick and choose what we want from the standard so I don't want to resurrect that argument - but to me each part of the standard should be understood in the terms of how it impacts the real life working ability of the dog.  That is the sole purpose for this breed.  


iluvmyGSD

by iluvmyGSD on 03 January 2008 - 18:01

i was just reading the LC thread again.......

im trying to figure this out...i guess LC is considered a serious fault? so even if the dog is titled, bone structure, temperment, hips,  and everything else about the dog is great...it is not breedable because of that one fault.....

so if i did everything right with boss, titled, hip x-ray...whatever else...would he still not be considered breedable because of his eye color?....not that i would ever breed him, just curious on how far down his eye color itself puts him on the "breedable" list.....

what faults are overlooked as long as everything else about the dog is great? what single faults completly turn you away from a dog, even though it is perfect in every other area...( i guess LC or white would be one of those?)


sueincc

by sueincc on 03 January 2008 - 22:01

Here is a link to the breed standard.  At the bottom are the disqualifing faults. 

http://germanshepherddog.com/regulations/breed_standard.htm

These disqualify a dog from a show.  At the same site, you can look up the Breed Survey rules, there is a list of faults that would exclude a dog from getting a breed survey. 

Currently, long stock coated dogs are not elegible to be surveyed and can't be shown.  They are still registered GSDs and as such, can be bred and their off spring can be registered. 


sueincc

by sueincc on 03 January 2008 - 22:01

I'll tell you this, it's NOT an easy call, and coat, eye color and other what some might call superficial faults are just the tip of the iceberg.  This is exactly  why breeding GSDs needs to be left up to only those who have real expertise in bloodlines, genetics,  schutzhund, and/or tending and all things related to GSDs health like hips, elbows etc...  When they breed dogs they aren't just looking at what that particular litter will be but what direction it takes the breed.

That's why I get so angry when people who really know very little about the breed decide to have a litter because they love their Schatzi and think she's a great dog.  It's fucked up, unfair to the dogs, irresponsible and selfish.  I am amazed how easy it is for people to rationalize bad behaviour when their  egos get involved or they see dollar signs.


by marci on 03 January 2008 - 22:01

A Fault is a fault...is a Fault...is a Fault....  Depending wether the dog is disqualified for Work or for Show...  As a breeder or Breed enthusiast  you decide his fate and judge the dog ON HIS OVERALL BEING and not by his details... I am sick of detailing a dogs fault ... but not detailing another dogs EXAGERRATION wether in Anatomy or Temperament and Drive....The breeder should have assessed the dog (so he knows if its breed-worthy) and try with a Never-ending quest to IMPROVE on his breeding stock... If the pup lack performance... try to look for owners that have connections to good trainers... say the pup has a Transmittable fault... advised the owner to to breed the dog and keep him only as apet or companion...

 






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top