SV á'Stamp Program Has A Problem - Page 6

Um, anyway, as to relevance  of earlier books on the breed, can anyone tell me how genetic principles distinguish between 40 years, and 40 months ?

I am sick of this sh.....This guy is insulting members on a regular basis.
Even elder or disabled people have to behave, at least for me there is no carte blanche for rudeness.

For the "English teacher":

by Les The Kiwi Pauling on 12 October 2016 - 09:10 :

" To me. the ONLY thing that saved... " ( punctuation? )

" In about 1988-83 Dr Malcolm Willis..." ( when? )

"...took the head radiologist of the BVA (some name like "Prof. Latham") to Germany,..." ( for me BVA is the shortcut for "Bundesverwaltungsamt" / "Federal Office of Administration" - so what do you mean? You shouldn´t use shortcuts, people on this board may become confused... )

" The most intense use of the BIF-scores is is .." ( how often is is? )

by Les The Kiwi Pauling on 16 October 2016 - 07:10 :

"...which the world (including even the "Jonny come lately" SV - yes, the SV dragged its tail for both dysplasias, with 'a'-stamps for what the Germans had called "the American disease" not required until 1967, compared to Sweden1959, Britain 1965 (changing to BIF-scoring in 1978 for GSDs, 1983 for all breeds), OFA 1966. " This is plain wrong, not "required", but introduced on a voluntary basis at that time at least in my country...Does anybody know when the "a" stamp was required in the other countries?

"Although NZ started trialling ways to detect HD in 1966, the scheme wasn't transferred to the NZVA until 1972) adopted." What do you want to say? I am missing at least a ( .

I could go on and on, but I think it´s enough...how does it feel?

Stop to belittle people because of spelling or grammatical errors.
Stop to complain about shortcuts, although you pretty well understand what people try to say.
Stop to behave like an unlikeable faultfinder.
Stop to talk about "poor education systems" as long as you are not able to behave educated.

And, PLEASE, stop to talk about "working dog" structure - even the best looking dog according to FCI#166 is useless = not breedworthy, in case it isn´t able to proof it´s working ability, and be it sheep herding "only" - should be no problem in your country.

You have been a teacher? Poor pupils...

Susie I couldn't agree more and if I see one more insulting comment from Les or anyone for that matter they will be banned!!!

It will not stop as long as you engage!🤐

The reason books from 40 years ago on the breed and on dog hip health matter little, is that any breeder worth buying a dog from already follows good breeding practices and will breed health tested dogs who pass hip and elbow ratings. There is very little need when it comes to hips and elbows to dive further into what it is most breeders are trying to do. ‘a’-stamp, OFA fair and over, BIF of less than 20, whatever you want to subscribe to will increase the chances of passing hips in progeny and hopefully improve the hip health of the breed as a whole. You also don’t need to read any book to know that no matter the system, genetics still throw wrenches and you can still end up with poor hips out of generations of dogs with passing hips. There isn’t a system out there that GUARANTEES passing hips in progeny.

Talking about dogs from 1960s and what they produced is useless because it’s ALL hearsay and coming from a biased/subjective author who is using his/her understanding of dogs in order to come to a conclusion about a certain dog. The truth is, the majority of talk about pre-youtube dogs is basically useless because most people haven’t even seen a video of a dog and just parrot whatever it is someone told them once about the dog. When it comes to hip production, you want to believe that having decades of progeny would help you figure out what a dog produced, but the biggest downfall of every hip rating system is that it's voluntary and easily bypassed when you look at a film and decide not to send it in. Sure, we have verbal history of who produced what, but even that is highly biased and skewed depending on who it's coming from and how it affects them.

I just watched a movie and a particular line stuck with me, “Don’t believe something is the truth just because someone you respect said it.” It’s probably the biggest downfall when it comes to anything GSD/dog breeding. Too many people want to hold onto what some elder tells them rather than think for themselves and question the information they’re receiving. For some reason, decades of doing it wrong or just being mediocre still earns someone respect as if they’ve accomplished something or are something special. Pets? When it comes to GSDs there are hundreds if not thousands of breeders all over the world producing stable, lay around the house, do nothing pets every day of the week. Those dogs are rarely worked, rarely titled, and rarely health tested and yet buyers are perfectly fine and happy and no one even notices those people. We do have a name for them though… Yet a few of these people come on a forum and all of a sudden they’re something special? Sorry, one look at what someone’s produced or the dogs they’ve entered into the database and it tells me all I need to know about the type of breeder they are, and if I can point that out to just one person on this forum about a poster or posters, I’ve done my job.

And you do a bang up job of it! Thanks for the clarity you bring to this modern age. 😊

Don't ever stop.

Well, there are probably over a hundred youtube dogs on this forum from this year alone( 2016 Seiger videos) that are ALL titled, hip certified, and I guess from the epitome of current breeding programs meeting said criteria of superior breeding. If this is the formula for " real working" dogs, I'm really missing something. What is the name for these breeders?

Who listed any kind of breeding criteria?

I’m talking about just discussing the older dogs that no one has seen and the only information most people have on them has been through word of mouth and spoken history. All too often I read about some dog from “back in the day” then actually happen to stumble upon a video of said dog and none of the things that are said about the dog are supported with the video. I’m not saying the dogs weren’t good, and that they don’t deserve to be in the pedigrees of all of today’s GSDs, but it’s just funny when someone talks about how strong and aggressive a dog was and in the video the dog is looking around in the blind between barks.

We get the same stories about hip/health production. When a dog is bred hundreds of times, possibly has thousands of progeny, what leads to “bad hip producer/don’t line breed?” I doubt anyone took the time to actually figure out the failing hip percentage. I’m sure that it came from a handful of dogs, in the hands of semi-powerful people, that ended up failing their health check. Or possibly an author with a gripe because his dog failed and so they decided to write something. More than likely it was a competitor on the field or even a rival stud dog owner who mentioned it to a few people and so the story began and kept spreading.

That’s probably my biggest issue with reading non-fiction books about our breed. Without knowing that author or what their biases are or what their motive might be, you’ll never get the full picture. And if any of you think that the information you receive about the breed, even from your most trusted of sources, isn’t filled with personal motive most of the time, you’re kidding yourselves.

I understand what you're saying BV, but I think you really want to believe this. I saw plenty of dogs and worked plenty in early seventies. How about working with over 250 dogs at Fort Benning from 73 to 77. Would that amount of dogs possibly give me an idea of what working dogs were like 40 years ago. Not ten dogs or even twenty-five dogs, but I'm talking working and observing over 200 GS, another 50 or so Labs. Now if I couldn't get an idea of the ability or capability of these dogs in four years of interaction with them, them I'm just plain slow. ( I'm sure many feel this way..haha)
Anyway, there were good dogs then and good dogs now, but excellent working stock came from most of the top Seiger dogs. I personally owned a Marko son and Meik v d Peltzerferm daughter, these dogs were from top winning show stock and they could work....not to speak of Enno progeny, Bernd/Bodo progeny, Arras Haus Helma, Frei v d Gugge, Valet v Busecker Schloss, etc.
My point is there was no predominant segment of GS that couldn't produce working stock, unlike today where the majority of the breed is pets.
That's why I feel the breed was better then, you can't take twenty percent of the breed(WL) and ignore 80 percent of breed in terms of working stock and then say the breed is better off today than then. Well, you can say it, but you have to ignore most of the breed to say this imo.
I will acknowledge that the breed is much more pet oriented today than in past, but I always looked at this breed as a working breed.

Look, let's drop this dialogue, I just get rattled when I hear people say dogs of the past were fables because nobody saw them, or dogs were judged in videos of today by sport standards. Those dogs were trained differently for their uses then, but in judging the average GS of today to the dogs of past in areas that are still existent today like LE, Guide dogs for Blind, Military, I know for fact that majority of breed can't adequately perform these functions anymore.....and if the breed in general is superior today, this makes no sense to me.

As for hips, I would say they are better today, although the bell curve has reached its peak imo, for past twenty some years.

Sorry, for rant, BV because when it comes to hips, I completely agree with your position. Your always breed for the total dog as opposed to hips, angulation, color, or even drive.

Gustav, although we do share a lot of views, we always differ about the quality of the "past" dogs.

The dogs you trained at Fort Benning were pre-selected for their "job", that said these dogs were sold to the army out of a reason, the army didn´t buy "any dogs from the street"...

What do I want to say? You got the dogs "pet" - "SchH" - or "show" people sold out of several reasons ( too civil, too hard, too ugly, missing teeth, whatever ) = not suitable for the genepool.

These dogs have never been the average of the German Shepherd Dog breed, but selected dogs (hopefully) able to do their job.