Please show me your WL gaiting! - Page 30

It is true that thorough evaluation of a dog should include temperament, but when op is asking for structure critique it isn't nice of me to ask about temperament as if I force him to let me evaluate his/her dog's temperament, moreover I don't see myself as experienced enough to evaluate temperament. Evaluating lines and angles is something, evaluating temperament is a totally something else. When there are others who know and it is part of their career to know, deal and evaluate temperament, I shouldn't poke my nose and maybe make a fool of myself, right?

 

Ibrahim

Ibrahim, there are many on this forum who enjoy your participation....you are entitled and appreciated so keep on keepen on. :-)

Thanks Joanro, I heartily appreciate that

I don't disagree with any of you on structure being important, but I agree with HD that there has become a difference in structure and conformation these days. Dogs that are too heavy, too big, and very clumsy may well have good conformation, but they don't have good structure for working.....ie which is why you infrequently see this type perform much other than show and pet. I very highly value structure, but it must transfer to supporting what the breed was meant to do. There are moderate show dogs that have good structure, but that means moderate and balanced in size and dimension. I have no problem with them if they have the correlating strength between the ears. The problem is some of the winning conformation is not actually good structure for any sustained work whether it is herding or police. I refuse to get sucked into promoting or condoning a dog for breeding if it doesn't have the mental or physical substance to continue the legacy of the breed....just because a judge put the dog up and when in a stationary pose it looks pretty. I have always had dogs with very good structure because it is important to me, and it is the same structure as the Mutz/Markos of years past....and they happen to be able to do the same things those dogs could do.....so to me if it was right back then and that structure was correct then and the proofing of the structure translated to versatile working, then if if strive to continue to breed that type dog I am breeding for correct structure and correct temperament.....because they should both be in same body. If the dog won't work because of temperament, or can't work because of structure....then the " experts" have strayed from utility dog being the core of breeding priorities. Today many condone function follows form.....because the judgement of the dog is based exclusively on form as many don't require function from their dogs......and to me that is ass backwards....lol, but I love and necessitate good to great structure!!!

For all the detractors of ipo like bubbababoon core working genetics is best in this day and age preserved in that venue.


will good working dogs come from show stock inconsistently yes. will good working dogs come from proven ipo stock, more consistently yes.

i neither show, compete or breed but i do know what pool to dive into to have the best chance of bumping into a working dog.

Soft, weak temperament dogs are not what versatility means, why did everyone take this term and applied it to the detriment of this breed?

Who said that, Hired Dog?

I'll ask again, do you own or have you ever owned a GSD?

To get back to the original topic, here's a WL dog in a flying trot:

 

 

 

Here's his uncle working sheep:

 

 

Totally different bloodlines (also taken while herding):

 

 

Pretty happy with her forereach:

 

Her sister, while herding:

 

I've posted this link in another thread, but though it would be appropriate here and some may have missed it. Form follows function.

http://pennvetwdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/9-Zink.pdf