What makes a - Page 4

TIG,

I honestly do not know the dates for these changes. I can only tell you that they happened long before my time.  The development of the breed registry was described in the special SV magazine issue to commemorate the 100th anniversary, if I remember that correctly. There was an interview with Herta von Stephanitz in there, the Rittmeister's daughter who is  an honorary member of the SV. I really need to find my issue, probably somewhere in the attic. I also have old SV magazines in my parents' attic in Germany. My mother has threatened for years to throw them out, hopefully she has not. I have to check when I visit them in the summer. I also used to talk to old time breeders and judges about the breed's development.

I am going to start a thread on this on the German board and see what kind of data I can get from others. There is a guy named Roland who is very knowledgable in the history of our breed. He had told me once about a couple of dogs with questionable or unknown heritage. When looking at the described female clans in the Schaeferhund.info database, I noticed that some were used/added  as late as the 50s. My guess is that they had to after World War II, since a lot of dogs were either dead or exported. That might be where the open registry came in, to refreshen and widen the gene pool. Some lines were extinct or lost during the post-war era. I have to find that particular thread on the German workingline board, there it was mentioned that one of the females supposedly was not even a GSD. When you look at old pedigrees, you might find dogs going to a particular female with an SVAlt No., example: www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/464918.html  This Greti von Memmingen is one of the foundation females used from the outside. The Memmingen kennel had some outstanding dogs in the early times, almost exactly 100 years ago. Greti's heritage is unknown. She might have been just a herding female added to the genepool. Don't bother viewing the "Change History", a couple of people were trying to add Czech dog names to her, which of course is not correct. I guess Oli corrected that. I will see if I can find out more, might be a few days though.

Chris

Chris,  Thanks for another good post. I learned something- never knew about the SVALT numbers - interesting.

I'm hoping your posts on the German boards garners us some more new info. Thanks again.  Beth

 

Crossposted from workingdogforums.com

 

 

"The thing that needs to be taken into account is that for many breeds what is outlined in the breed standard and what is seen in the conformation show ring are NOT the same. The GSD is probably the worst of the working breeds as far as this goes.

The breed standard hasn't really changed since the breed's inception. The dogs certainly have. People's *interpretation* of the standard has, due mainly to personal preference. Look at the American and European show lines. Both are conformation dogs, and thus supposedly bred to most closely fit the standard, and essentially the SAME standard. Yet they look nothing like one another, and very little like the standard.

The American show breeders have taken the portion of the standard in relation to gait, and gone to the extreme breeding dogs specifically for the "flying trot" and they have gone so far in favor of trotting that the dog's overall physical ability has been compromised. Sure, their dogs can trot fluidly and effortlessly, but they can't run fast, jump well, and many of them can't even walk normally.

The German show line breeders have created banana backs. They have taken the portion of the standard that refers to a back that slopes gently, and created severe roaches that supposedly are "correct" and make for a more efficient trotting dog due to greater rear impulsion. Again, overall athletic ability has been compromised.

Structure is important to working endeavors. A dog with poor structure will not have the athleticism to perform well, and will not be structurally sound enough to hold up physically over a long working life. Therefore it must be of concern to working breeders. But it's balanced, utilitarian, working structure. NOT what is seen in the show ring. The people who wrote the standard knew what they were doing with regards to making the dog's structurally capable of working. By continuing to place priority on working ability, both in terms of temperament and in terms of physical ability, the working breeders are the ones who have maintained the breed in structure as well.

Read the standard, look at the illustrated breed standard, look at the original GSDs from decades past before conformation showing got ridiculous, and you will see that the dogs today that most closely resemble the standard and the dogs of yesteryear are the working lines, not the show lines of either type.

The people who wrote the standard knew what they were doing in terms of making sure the dogs were physically capable of doing their jobs. By placing priority on working ability, both from a temperament standpoint and from the standpoint of making sure the dogs remained physically capable, the working breeders are the ones who have maintained the best structure in the dogs from a utility standpoint."

Quite a post, harddawg – who did write it? In some ways it seems reminiscent to what I’ve said previously elsewhere, though perhaps rather overstating the situation. “The German show line breeders have created banana backs. They have taken the portion of the standard that refers to a back that slopes gently, and created severe roaches that supposedly are "correct" and make for a more efficient trotting dog due to greater rear impulsion. Again, overall athletic ability has been compromised.” The Standard also mentions ‘level’ in relation to backs. Do Breeders really maintain that banana backs are correct”? I suppose they do or otherwise we wouldn’t have them, and they’d fail in the Ring as well! It may make for better acceleration (assuming dog’s reach is equal to it) but whether it truly makes for more efficient trotting is doubtful. “Structure is important to working endeavors. A dog with poor structure will not have the athleticism to perform well, and will not be structurally sound enough to hold up physically over a long working life. Therefore it must be of concern to working breeders. But it's balanced, utilitarian, working structure. NOT what is seen in the show ring. The people who wrote the standard knew what they were doing with regards to making the dog's structurally capable of working. By continuing to place priority on working ability, both in terms of temperament and in terms of physical ability, the working breeders are the ones who have maintained the breed in structure as well.” What does “utilitarian working structure” consist of? It seems to be all over the place as far as I can tell! Speaking generally also and of structure alone, I personally think you’d have to give it to the show-lines. “Read the standard, look at the illustrated breed standard, look at the original GSDs from decades past before conformation showing got ridiculous, and you will see that the dogs today that most closely resemble the standard and the dogs of yesteryear are the working lines, not the show lines of either type.” The working-line dogs of yesteryear were generally on a pretty even footing with the show-lines ones but this no longer seems to be the case. Really can’t agree that the ‘working’ dog conforms closest to the Standard – despite present show dog (American or German?) ‘aberrations’? “The people who wrote the standard knew what they were doing in terms of making sure the dogs were physically capable of doing their jobs. By placing priority on working ability, both from a temperament standpoint and from the standpoint of making sure the dogs remained physically capable, the working breeders are the ones who have maintained the best structure in the dogs from a utility standpoint." What sort of working ability or “utility standpoint”? Trotting, protection, rescue, police work, general versatility? I simply can’t see how working dogs as a class are sufficiently alike, or so superior structure-wise, as to enable such sweeping conclusions.

"What does "utilitarian working structure" consist of? It seems to be all over the place as far as I can tell! Speaking generally also and of structure alone, I personally think you'd have to give it to the show-lines."

http://www.yourdictionary.com/utilitarian

One of the defs of utilitarian; stressing usefulness over beauty or other considerations. Structure is what makes something usefull rather it be a building, bridge, animal or even a human. Let's see Brad Pitt fight Mike Tyson. That'll give you the answer of purpose designed structure. "Speaking generally also and of structure alone", You would give it to the show-lines because? You think they are pretty? They can trot? There is a lot more to a working dog than trotting.

 

"The working-line dogs of yesteryear were generally on a pretty even footing with the show-lines ones but this no longer seems to be the case. Really can't agree that the 'working' dog conforms closest to the Standard – despite present show dog (American or German?) 'aberrations'?"

It isn't the case because showlines are not working line dogs anymore. They are for showing only.

The standard hasn't changed that much but look at back then;

 

and now...

 

The show line dog of the future is too heavy and weak in the back. He will break down easily.

 

"What sort of working ability or "utility standpoint"? Trotting, protection, rescue, police work, general versatility? I simply can't see how working dogs as a class are sufficiently alike, or so superior structure-wise, as to enable such sweeping conclusions."

Honestly you would have to be a person that has worked as both handler and helper with both types to really understand the difference. This isn't something you can read about and make decisions from any written material. You have to have the actual experience.

As a general rule there is quite a difference in athleticism, drives, spirit, health and vitality that seperates the working line German Shepherd from the show line.

Show me the showline that displays amazing power, driven to work and is this beautiful in motion...

 

Otherwise ignore all the people complaining and continue to let the other breed continue to take the jobs...

Until people begin to favor him and begin destroying his working ability.

 

 

 

http://siriusdog.com/articles/article3.php?id=369

 

 

 

I don’t dispute that function determines structure, harddawg; merely saying that you’ve been pretty vague as to what this function is meant to be - “working” doesn’t per se specify all that much. In fact, many of the folks here seem to believe that ‘working’ is synonymous exclusively with PPD or Sch3 and similar. (Meantime no doubt flogging the pups off to your average urban family home owner almost as if they were rendering a great public service!? A crazy world indeed!) But guarding, man-work, or protecting humans and their property generally is a long way from herding sheep or the wide range of other more modern tasks the GSD is asked to perform, or even in just being a good trotter; or, the kind of dog the average buyer needs and looks for, or is able to properly control for that matter. Only my opinion, but with its emphasis on trotting ability I’d say the Standard itself is here a bit anomalous as well. (Still, somehow I can’t imagine Max envisioned some specialized PPD though!) Certainly wouldn’t give first prize to the show animal because of prettiness but speaking solely of structure, only insofar its anatomy is by and large the more correct one. (Oh, were they but a bit smaller and less heavy!) But, see how it’s only possible to relate structure to function by being specific; if one merely wanted a dog for static guarding duty for instance, why not the bigger and heavier? (King Shepherd?) Or why not another Breed altogether? You say: “It isn't the case because showlines are not working line dogs anymore. They are for showing only. The standard hasn't changed that much but look at back then …” The whole shebang of schutzhund, survey, conformation showing etc, is foremost aimed at ensuring that despite the misnomer, the ‘show’ dog remains fit for a variety of tasks. The Standard devised by Max and hence however is largely visionary. (And as your pictures exemplify too, simply doesn’t prescribe any concrete model; in fact, in this respect one could drive a truck through it! Now, if you needed to know what the teeth should be like ..!) With established breeds they only needed to select a first class specimen, take appropriate measurements, and there’s your future Standard almost done. Maybe it’s high-time we were more specific likewise - what if we used a dimensionally suitably-adjusted Zamp as our future template ..? (On the other hand, the GSDCA’s Standard, replete with pictorial explanations, is specific enough, yet even this hasn’t achieve much by the looks of it!) “The show line dog of the future is too heavy and weak in the back. He will break down easily. Honestly you would have to be a person that has worked as both handler and helper with both types to really understand the difference. This isn't something you can read about and make decisions from any written material. You have to have the actual experience. As a general rule there is quite a difference in athleticism, drives, spirit, health and vitality that seperates the working line German Shepherd from the show line. Show me the showline that displays amazing power, driven to work and is this beautiful in motion...” I agree with much of what you say, as well how present show animal is afflicted by many problems, their backs included. Still, I’ve got both and see the differences in a small way daily and, anecdotally only, can’t agree they’re as overwhelming as you make out; whereas individual make-up/quality plays a crucial role too methinks. My oldest show bitch leaves my Dutch-derived working-lines for dead in every department you mentioned, with the daughter a very slight edge I’d say, and the others probably below but not by that much (the latter, admittedly, particularly tend to suffer in the stamina stakes – the direct result of being bigger and weightier – and

I don't breed or show GSD's but have a lot of experience with another large working breed. Another trend I see that I think showline breeders needs to be careful with is the  "akita-type" heads so many rave over.  This is not correct for any dog requiring endurance to perform it's job. I've seen this happen in my original breed and the end result will be dogs with overly long soft palates without patent airways. These dogs will huff and puff like freight trains when called upon to do any type of work that is in the bit demanding.  I think that can already be heard at ringside at the SV shows. TheAKC dogs don't huff and puff that way, they do not have the heavy, overdone heads. The shorter, heavier muzzles also bring with them missing teeth beginning with the premolars, undershot bites, round eyes, and lowered ear sets.

Short legs are another issue with this breed I think. Some feel the backs are too long, I think the legs are too short, but it is possibly a combination of both.

 

Thanks for that, Blitzen- know what you mean about those ‘boof-heads’? Notice from harddawg’s first photograph also how high-legged the early dogs were, and that horizontally level back?

The point is that many working breeds have lost nearly all of their working ability due to a primary emphasis in breeding put into showing. This is what show ring breeders do -- they ruin working breeds.

"Irish Setters, once famed at finding birds, are now so brain-befogged they can no longer find the front door. Cocker Spaniels, once terrific pocket-sized birds dogs, have been reduced to poodle-coated mops incapable of working their way through a field or fence row. Fox terriers are now so large they cannot go down a fox hole. Saint Bernards, once proud pulling dogs, are now so riddled with hip dysplasia that it's hard to find one that can walk without surgery in old age. "

All you have to do is google "decline of the working breed" and you will find much more info.

Case in point is the bull terrier. Look at the link... http://www.terrierman.com/rosettestoruin.htm

Another interesting article by Fred Lanting entitled "The Gap Widens" http://siriusdog.com/articles/gap-widens.htm

And "Will the True Working Dog Disappear" http://siriusdog.com/articles/will-true-working-dogs-disappear.htm

 

Thanks for the link to Lanting articles, harddawg – first time I read them. And all in all, despite sweeping generalizations, self-contradiction, constant promotion of self, own books and ‘holy-land’ tours, or political swipes etc, you’ve got to love Fred. Not sure how articles support your claim those show dogs are pretty useless though. Sure, he’s got all sorts of qualms, criticisms and reservations, including Sieger-related procedural ones, but still seems to view them very much as working animals, the same way as many of us do. And sure there’s too much emphasis on cosmetics: blame the pup market and money! In fact, Fred isn’t all that taken with current working-lines either: “high-ranking Leistungs (schutzhund-trial) dogs with weak heads, extremely short croups, and upright fore-assemblies. These are OK for galloping, but not suited for endurance herding and therefore not representative of the historic body construction of the breed.” (Now, if only he’d reveal what particular past construction he’s minded of!) And like many, he clearly also doesn’t envisage show/working divide disappearing any time soon. (Bit strange too coming from one whom not so long ago, and of course well after his conversion to all things German, led us to believe that the GSD and working dog world begins and ends with schutzhund religiosity!) It really all comes back to the selling/export of pups, related Internet trading and photogenic profiles. Love the way he opens his November 2006 True Working Dog piece as an ostensible discussion of GSD ‘type’ (“an especially good representative of the Standard”) and ‘style’ (that “diverging from that ideal”). Yet here too, how more useful if only he’d described this “ideal” model! But then proceeds to use it as a means for scoring various political points, including against those “effete politicians who are more afraid of voters' bites than that of the breeds they hate”; news Fred: politicians will inevitably support whatever produces the most votes. Deploring the widening gap between show/working dogs, he states: “This trend is short-sighted, even suicidal. In Europe and elsewhere, there is a growing bias against the sport of schutzhund (protection and utility proofing) and the civilian and military/police jobs that this activity was designed to simulate.” Ah, back to square one: schutzhund titles and ‘working dog’ are inseparable - simply one and the same in fact! And schutzhund “sport” somehow equates to “utility proofing”. At this point one already wonders whether Fred’s mind isn’t influenced in small part by his European package tours (also tourism industry’s most profitable segment by far). But only till such promotion begins in earnest: “That leaves only one small reclusive refuge for the aficionado of the "working dog": the shrinking world of Schutzhund. As a rule, most of these people are primarily trainers, not breeders; they spend their time and energies in the tracking field, working obedience routines, and building confidence and technique in the bite work.” Followed by: “In 2006, we were fortunate to meet with the breeders and trainers at Tiekerhook, Karthago, Pfalzerheide, Willems' Reptrade, and a KNPV (Dutch Police Dog) club close to Amsterdam” etc.