Why Breed Dogs? - Page 2

Me too !

not a breeder anymore than I am a personal pack replacer but I do not get the preservation mentality, great for zoo animals and extreme idiosyncratic enthusiasts.

the actual old fashion way that invented these breeds was not based on nostalgia or preservation it was based on what is needed in your own personal time - thats it.

so many folks cling to a largely fictitious history because they are so far removed from the need for an actual working dog.

working animals, dogs, horses etc reflect the needs of the time - preservation is for museum curators and BS marketing to clueless pet owners that want to buy into great tales, myths and fables of yore.

for proof just go get a profile on people looking to buy a DDR /wall dogs, border patrol dogs etc, lots of old ladies. the working dog handlers take the unpapered GSD/DS/ma/pit bull cross and couldn't care less about the mythology.

jmo.

Pete,  that's largely BS;   while it is true that more-or-less 'single purpose' types

of dog emerged / evolved gradually - and then developed - within the communities

that employed them,  i.e. a wide variety of collie - types for livestock herding, small

vocal dogs for temple-guarding, hound-types for  hunting game, whatever,  the idea

of refining dogs into  distinct & identifiable "breeds"  is much more recent in human

history :   like 18th & 19th Century  'recent'.  When Max Von Stephanitz put together

his Standard for the German Shepherd Dog, he and like-minded individuals around

him were right in synch with their time and trends.   But what he built his Breed from

was a type of versatile, intelligent, shepherds' companion and tool, going back for

generations.   He spotted things about that group of dogs that could be worked up

into something adaptable to doing defence / patrol work with people as well as sheep.

He also noticed that a majority of dogs he was using, and refining into what he wanted

to see, had in common some features he and others found physically pleasing.  But

although he wanted those things to come together and 'breed true', he wasn't blind to

the fact that there would be people who put one aspect of the breed above all else ...

he knew there would be those would-be breeders who wanted to concentrate on the

assertive, guarding behavior to the detriment of all else he was trying to put together

(including the ability to work with sheep),  and that equally there would be those who

wanted to place what the dogs LOOKED like, and/or how good they were as

companion-animals, as of greater importance than any of the working abilities.

It has surely not escaped your notice - removed geographically as you may be - that a

majority of 'working' and sports owners still want the dogs to have the good steady

GSD character, AND the pricked ears  ?  Of course if you just want a dog to hunt with

or to bite burglars, you won't care if its a crossbreed or got one eye and three ears, 

as long as it does the job.  But in practice most people want an example of a 'chosen'

breed, one they took to above others, so they want it to be 'like' it is supposed to be

as that breed.

Trouble is, they like it but too often don't understand it or know enough about it;  and

then you get the arguments ...

 

 

 

reality check; the standard can be re-written any time by whoever mooches their way into power and the "standard" can vary from country to country for the same breed - how does that even make sense?

look at what the standards has done for the GSD - a bunch of sub breeds that the factions all think their version is correct and all the other versions incorrect - what a joke

your point about defining dogs by "breed" as a relatively new phenomena is precisely my point.

standards are written by enthusiasts, preservers and commodifiers of dog flesh, the very ones that profit from a written standard.

captain max never worked a dog in his life, he never trained one and apparently he wasn't even a particularly good breeder.

I do not disagree with you on the point that Standards - plural - have
been 'bent' to suit the various Kennel Clubs' preferences - if you review
what I have posted over time, I have always said I'd prefer we should all
have stuck to that original, German, 'standard'. I think for example that
the AKC Standard - the wording, but more the way it has been interpreted
and deployed - has resulted in US Show lines being a travesty of what was
originally intended. Hence the fact that I always have to say to e.g. Xeph
that I am sorry, I cannot warm to their sort of GSD and will not offer any
critiques. I think the only American ASL/AKC show winners I have ever
critiqued have been in PMs, and then only to one or two other posters. If
Showdogs people in North America are looking increasingly towards the FCI
Standard [based on Germany's] more these days, IMO that would be a good
thing. But I don't see the AKC conceding to that, do you ?
In the UK we have had less distinction between SL and WL, with more overlap
between the two, although the Working and IPO owners are leaning more these
days to breeding with the WL from Eastern Europe. How much those breeding
lines are distinctly: A) any more like the 'original' GSDs and B) whether they are
always much better at being either working (in the sense of Armed/Police Forces
jobs) or the sports bitework / IPO sector, than are individual dogs from British/
German conformation lines, is on the whole a moot point, and arguable.
If we are to 'preserve' this breed, it is surely as a whole breed, based in what was
originally developed, or we sling the baby out with the bathwater, yes ?
I dispute your assertion that such 'preservation' is wrong, or that it equates with
'conservation' in the sense that you related to Zoos and so on.

PS Whichever Standard you choose to use (or none !), the thing is
just a written description, a piece of paper. It is the way it is interpreted
and used, and the backing that use is given by organisations, that dic-
tates what happens with the dogs. That is down to the whims and
pronouncements and breeding decisions of people - who are breeders,
or handlers, or judges, on BOTH sides of the Show / Work devide, and
both general /conformation dog Clubs AND training/sports Clubs, as
well as national Kennel Clubs, the World Union, and individuals who have
gained some voice in those various 'worlds'. These decide the fashion
trends, the reputation (s) of the breed, the 'state' of the breed .....and the
way Standards are written follows THAT, not the other way round (right
or wrong !).

Though the article reads well, I am not sure the premise of society changes applies like it does with example of Rhodesian Ridgeback and lions.
In the times that the standard was enacted the primary uses of GSD were military, police, herding, service and guard dog.( please don't confuse this with the breed being a good pet which it always has been, but the creation of the breed was not for being a pet....but the primary roles didn't hamper the breed being fine pets)
Other than possibly herding, there are more police/military use of canines than ever before, there are more Service dog use than ever before, there are still guide dog use throughout the world. Yet, we are seeing less and less of GSD in these capacities. The breed is the third or fourth most popular in the world in numbers.......so I have a hard time understanding how societal changes have affected the use of the breed in its original functions. There are more jobs than ever before, there are more GSD than ever before, yet the breeders of today are producing dogs that are not able to occupy these jobs unless they are exceptional. The volume of the breed makes it so that money isn't a reason working agencies and individuals no longer go to this breed first, so my only conclusion is that we have altered the very essence of the breed to be more cosmetic than functional.....but it's not because of a lack of need/use like the Rodesian Ridgeback....no that really doesn't apply to the changes,imo.

Gustav -

Gustav a big 

I will add paying attention to cosmetic aspect of the GSD is not wrong in itself as long as focus remains a work breed of correct health, temperament and structure

 Ibrahim.