FAULTS - Page 3

I'm SORRY...advised the Owner..... NOOOT TOOO BREEED...

Well, of course, it stands to reason that "passing" the minimim standards does not necessarily equal an excellent dog. 

But it is fair to ask these quesitons.  Why are particular standards considered of consequence or importance?  Some are obvious, others not.................................it seems to me a minor fault in an otherwise stellar dog might be overlooked. It sounds like at BEST a light eyed dog, could go KKl2.

But  you know it is not the person breeding one or two well thought out litters in their life that are flooding the pounds and destroying the future of the breed.  Unless the progeny of their dogs wind up in the hands of the people breeding indiscriminately which can be controlled with limited registration. 

Pounds are filled by people cranking them out and selling them in the newspaper. 

The breed is destroyed by people breeding to some exagerration of the standard that meets the current "fad" for beauty or only by looking at only one element of temperament or none at all (e.g., a dog that bites like a fiend but won't excell at tracking or obedience or the dog that "gets" a schutzhund title but only with a lot of help because they are not suitable) 

Yes, it is the person breeding one or two litters because there's lots of these yokels out there, breeding poor old Schatzi every time she comes in season..  They also turn into the ones who up the ante by either breeding the pups they didn't sell or buying the cheapest purebreds they can find and adding her/him to their "breeding program".  

thanks dwc for that, so you mean that the dog is not confident enough in it's self, to handle a new situation, and do it's job.

On color and faults people, remember that colors are rarely faults.

instread look at the standard and you will see

solid white a disqualification ( not fault, but more serious)but that is not the original standard anyway.

and strong rich colors are "preffered" not that a lighter color is automatically a fault.

Jo-Ann

"Yes, it is the person breeding one or two litters because there's lots of these yokels out there, breeding poor old Schatzi every time she comes in season..  They also turn into the ones who up the ante by either breeding the pups they didn't sell or buying the cheapest purebreds they can find and adding her/him to their "breeding program".  "

I am just not going to buy that.  I think there is a fundamental difference between someone in a schutzhund club or other working group breeding a dog with a goal in mind and placing the puppies in appropriate homes than someone who is cranking them out to make a fast buck.   Unless their dogs are titled and the progeny of those dogs are titled they will not impact the overall quality of the breed. 

I think the OP was trying to understand the relevance and significance of certain faults - certainly the standard has faults and disqualifying faults and you started to take this thread in the direction of being angry about people breeding their dogs. 

FWIW I have never bred a dog.  

Do you find fault with trying to understand these things?   I am interested in understanding WHY certain things are considered faults. No more no less.  I don't think either one of us is going to say - my dog has light eyes and good hips. Yipee.  Lets get them together :)

Of course I don't find fault with trying to understand these things.   I said understanding all this is NOT easy and that's why breeding should be left to the experts. I don't think that takes the thread in another direction, however; it does state the obvious. 

I'm not sure what you are talking about in the following paragraph:

"I am just not going to buy that.  I think there is a fundamental difference between someone in a schutzhund club or other working group breeding a dog with a goal in mind and placing the puppies in appropriate homes than someone who is cranking them out to make a fast buck.   Unless their dogs are titled and the progeny of those dogs are titled they will not impact the overall quality of the breed "

Why is a dark eye desirable?...cosmetic????....standard indicates????

The great breeder Alfred Hahn of Busecker Schloss kennel who bred shepherd for infinity and produced some of the great GS in the history of the breed always asserted that he found a higher correlation of light eyes to better working dogs. He also felt that there was a higher percentage of working dogs that came from sables. The definition of this breed is a working dog by intent, so why would not either of these traits not be preferred or encouraged by top breeders. Afterall, isn't shepherd breeding working dog breeding???????

thanks dwc for that, so you mean that the dog is not confident enough in it's self, to handle a new situation, and do it's job.

On color and faults people, remember that colors are rarely faults.

instread look at the standard and you will see

solid white a disqualification ( not fault, but more serious)but that is not the original standard anyway.

and strong rich colors are "preffered" not that a lighter color is automatically a fault.

Jo-Ann

here is a link to what Linda Shaw (The Illustrated German Shepherd) says about eye color:(scroll to the bottom):  http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/07_Colour_&_Pigment/Colour_&_Pigment.html