IPO vs "Real Dog" - Page 2

That should have been ! Sorry, fat fingers 😀

Random things that people either find adorable or just accept as part of living with an animal…could be anything from fear of random things in the environment to aggression at random strangers. Pretty much every pet owner accepts certain issues with their animal, most don’t even think about it anymore but to someone else it could be a temperament flaw. Environmental stuff is considered quirky by most pet owners, they don’t care that their dog barks at cars, or gets freaked out if it walks by a lawn ornament or something, they tell those stories as if they’re funny. Those are the people that do IPO as well…and they’re not about to stop doing IPO or get rid of their dog because it has that quirk.

Breeders do this as well…and that’s a big problem with what IPO tests for, but most breeders in the United States aren’t training their dogs anyways so they’re just going to breed whatever they’ve invested money in anyways no matter what kind of issues the dog has trial field or not.

It´s a moot question, because this road goes both ways...

A "IPO" breeder willing to breed a dog with temperament flaws is not breeding according to the standard
whereas
a "real dog" breeder willing to breed a dog with temperament flaws is not breeding according to the standard, too.

Interestingly both won´t have the best dogs, cause temperament flaws become visible sooner or later - they may be able to place their dogs, but they won´t be able to produce winners on a regular basis ( in case of "real dogs" outstanding specimen ).

Within "IPO" in some cases no more aloofness, not enough courage -
within "real dogs" in some cases too much social aggression, a too low threshold
( very simplified said )

only as examples.

There are "normal" dogs within both camps, but breeders out of both camps tend to focus on the positive traits only, while forgetting about the negative aspects according to the breed standard.

In case both camps would breed for overall good dogs, there would be no "split" - I really believe a stable dog with good working dog temperament is able to participate in almost any venue. I have seen skittish working lines, I have seen very good show lines, and I have seen unstable protection dogs...

My background? Edited: A lot of dogs, owned, handled, trained, titled

For me "GT" is spot on - out of my personal experience at least in my country the breed became better ( health, temperament ) - a dog able to make it to the Nationals today most certainly will be a very good dog, the requirements raised a lot during the decades, but I am sure others made different experiences.

I'd be interested to understand what the definition of a 'real dog'/'better dog' is. Is there a consensus? Not a rhetorical question, trying to learn.

there are speedskaters, figureskaters , Icehokeyskaters and recreants, all skaters but NOT interchangeable in each others routines

same with GSD

only some people think the recreants and figureskaters will be good Ice hokey players as well

Duke ,that´s the most important question -

do we want to breed for good "skaters" ( the breed standard ), and out of those skaters some of them are able to specialize,
or do we want to breed for specialists only?

I still believe in the "universal" dog, the skater according to the breed standard, and some of these skaters will specialize, but all of them should be able to skate ( the breed standard ).

Real dog is a marketing term to impress dumb asses.

Sounds like 'real dog' ranks right up there with 'true family protector' etc. that you see on half the websites and descriptions of the breed out there. I wonder what % of owners of the third most popular breed in the country understand the truth.

Simply from reading what folks are saying I can tell if they "IPO" or "Real" people.

Susie are you " Real" ?

Mithuna is the current ambassador of Real here...nuff said.