Would you breed a blue mal? - Page 13

I realise it won't meet much favour on THIS Forum, but there is a school of thought among 'proper' pedigree breeders that what many of them are striving for and producing IS the cream of their breeds, and this would include both Malinois and GSDs. That ANY mixing and/or dilution of any contributory factor is actually a weakening of the true, originally intended, definition of the breed.

They do not see the current working tests as the "be all & end all" in defining their breeds abilities any more than you gentlemen do, being just as aware as anyone of the limits of such matters and of the politics and other such influences.   They are also just as aware of the way the reputation of GSDs works on the public, prison inmates etc as much as the dogs' actual abilities.

But they are not trying to achieve "man stoppers" of the order of which is spoken here; they just want dogs capable of fulfilling their original purpose(s), not the 'super-enhanced weaponry' version. The fact that dogs of the enhanced type and suitability do occur, time and again, by showing extreme bravery on behalf of their handlers or owners, whatever their breeding lines and whatever the training, is enough to convince them of this view. 

Now, you lot may say that they are wrong; that that is stupid, that they don't know what they are talking about - but these examples DO occur; and there is surely enough diversity among the dogs themselves, that everyone can have what they want to work / play with, without dissing everybody else's p.o.v. and breeding, isn't there ?

As I have said before, I totally disagree with that. What if you had a male GSD that was 27" at the withers and 110 pounds, had OFA excellent hips, was super agile, had great pigment and super drives and nerves? Would you pass on breeding the dog because he is too tall and heavy according to the standard? The standard supporters would argue that the working value of dogs above or below the height and weight for the standard is proportionately lessened. My argument is that the above average hips, agility, pigment, drive and nerves more than compensates for an "oversized" dog. This is how valuable genetics are lost. What is one practical reason why a dog such as I described would have decreased working value. Based on this hypothetical dog, there are certainly dogs within the standard that are of high quality but have lessened working value due to temperament issues that are not as strong as this hypothetical dog. You can easily correct physical traits, such as if a line starts to become consistently/progressively oversized.

https://www.facebook.com/muzmuztv/videos/evil-brn-28542-now-evil-at-4-months-owner-khoshaba-younan/648261169003402/

 

I'll repost this unregistered Mal X. The FCI standard for males is 55-66 pounds. This dog weighs 95 pounds. He has produced some nice dogs. Why eliminate him from the gene pool?

apple as you stated earlier, the ‘X’ is not a pure bred dog, and the alleged 95 pounders - well above the FCI/AKC BM standard - may be acceptable for KNPV specific breeding, due to working qualities..from what I gleaned here. Apparently that program has had much success. Yet some would disagree such a large dog is practical for police cruiser deployment, handiness in urban terrain etc.. Hundmutter’s last post imo speaks sensibly for the majority of GS/BM purebred enthusiasts. Although K9 weaponeering and zombie-stopping does make for decent discussion.

A 95 pound Malinois is great to have in a fight against a bad guy, but, a lot of dog to control too. The experienced K-9 handlers I know all prefer a smaller size one because its easier to control them.
Having said that, if you are going to ask me to stand behind a 50 pound dog, it better be a pit bull that I selected and trained.

No, I do not think that apple's dog should be excluded from breeding IF it has all the right qualities, just because of his size.

GK1, indeed hundmutter speaks for the average pet owner of the breeds, but, there are a few exceptions to consider too, yes? Its great when you can have it all in one dog, size, determination, courage and the ability to stop zombies, unfortunately, the pure bred dog world seems to be following the "pet" aspect of breeding because that is where the money is, so, for those few that seek a "weaponized" dog, programs like the KNPV and the NVBK may be the answer.

Hired Dog, sure its the answer, but its not the only answer. Too many of these opinions / posts lean towards a holier-than-thou sort of stance, where everybody should be breeding for what THEY want, and as a corrollory to that, NOBODY ought to be breeding anything else.  I am just as much against people who ONLY breed anything for the money they can make, as you or anyone else;  being anti the one scene does not need to automatically make one anti, or pro, any of the others.

And by the way, a "majority of purebred enthusiasts" does NOT equal "average pet owners".

 

Apple: of course over the years some people make exceptions to what they breed from; if something is otherwise a very good beast, one or two less than absolutely 'correct to the Standard' requirements can be ignored and worked back to later. Which is precisely why a few years ago we did  get a trend for a while in the Showdogs (UK @ least, but I think it was somewhat true in Germany too) of some really oversized GSDs, particularly males.  My own take on that is: too tall is the same as too high a hip rating - IF you know your stock and know what you are doing - and care about the long term results - you can afford to take a few risks.  Sadly there are people who take those risks regardless, just as there are people who just want to exploit the dogs for profits.

Hundmutter, to me, a pet owner is someone whose dog does not actually go to work every day. That includes show dogs, agility dogs, IPO dogs etc.
Someone else may feel different and thats fine, but, that is my interpretation. My problem starts when people who have no business telling those that breed working dogs, like the folks in the KNPV, how to breed, based on THEIR ideas of what a dog should be and what the standard says.
Clearly, the KNPV, the NVBK, etc, have no interest in FCI/registrable dogs. They have bred dogs like the ones they train and title for 100 years, their breeding practices work, for what they want in their dogs.

hired dog - I like pit bulls - as they are meant to be: 35-50 pounds and generally human friendly. Own and have owned. Due to selective breeding for certain traits, I just don't see the apbt at the same level of inherent trainability of a good Malinois regardless of size. LE K9 and MWD handlers I've known and worked with over time cite a (fit) 65-75 pound dog as the ideal sized dual purpose dog; of course there are left/right exceptions.

apple, if the KNPV identifies their dogs as crosses (X) and does not register them conventionally as you say, then the KNPV should be exempt from the breed standards (color, size etc) debated in this thread? Not sure about the NVBK - I think those lines are originally more Belgian Ring sport oriented..different program.

Hundmutter said: "We in the UK have Police Dogs - many still directly descended from German 'showline' stock

hundmutter, this made me laugh, since I doubt there are that many here who remember when Busecker Schloss was "show line" and what type dog they were.

Rik

"Would you pass on breeding the dog because he is too tall and heavy according to the standard?"

Yes, because plenty of dogs that MEET the standard have those same attributes.
To breed out of standard should be done only when the dog in question offers something so outstanding and rare that it can't possibly be found in another in-standard dog.