This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Blitzen on 10 June 2012 - 12:06
Opinions on the use of frozen semen and how it could effect the future of the breed in the US? The SV and the FCI would both need to get on board and revise their rules, should they consider doing that?
by Ibrahim on 10 June 2012 - 12:06
Blitzen,
You mean there is frozen semen of the past VAs with the SV that can be used today? If the answer is yes, then when did they start freezing the Semen, starting from which year?
Ibrahim
You mean there is frozen semen of the past VAs with the SV that can be used today? If the answer is yes, then when did they start freezing the Semen, starting from which year?
Ibrahim
by Blitzen on 10 June 2012 - 12:06
Not as far as I know, Ibrahim.
by Abby Normal on 10 June 2012 - 14:06
My heart missed a beat - now wouldn't that be something...if frozen semen were available from some of the past legends.
Markobytes
The SV do believe they are on the cutting edge in terms of structure, and so do many in the GSD world. Ibrahim holds that today's structure is 'superior' (that is not a criticism Ibrahim, just an observation), so it is a widely held belief which will prevail throughout the breed. There may be small pockets of people like yourself and Blitzen and we have a few in the UK who are breeding SL to what I would call superior WL in an effort to moderate where SL is going, or at least to see what the mix may produce. But these small individuals will not influence the breed in general.
I agree with Gustav, Javir would have and could have been used in the way that von Stephanitz used dogs to correct faults in the past, and it could have been the beginning of the SV standing behind what they have been saying for many years about the variety of faults that they have stated have been emerging - oversize, weak temperament, reduced working ability, faulty hocks, roach backs etc etc. Doing rather than talking. There is no doubt that placements at Sieger Shows influence future breeding, none at all. SV dictate direction, but it all hinges on where THEY want to go.
But, as I said earlier on, the SV of today do not have the same altruistic intention for the future of the breed that von Stephanitz had. JMO
Markobytes
The SV do believe they are on the cutting edge in terms of structure, and so do many in the GSD world. Ibrahim holds that today's structure is 'superior' (that is not a criticism Ibrahim, just an observation), so it is a widely held belief which will prevail throughout the breed. There may be small pockets of people like yourself and Blitzen and we have a few in the UK who are breeding SL to what I would call superior WL in an effort to moderate where SL is going, or at least to see what the mix may produce. But these small individuals will not influence the breed in general.
I agree with Gustav, Javir would have and could have been used in the way that von Stephanitz used dogs to correct faults in the past, and it could have been the beginning of the SV standing behind what they have been saying for many years about the variety of faults that they have stated have been emerging - oversize, weak temperament, reduced working ability, faulty hocks, roach backs etc etc. Doing rather than talking. There is no doubt that placements at Sieger Shows influence future breeding, none at all. SV dictate direction, but it all hinges on where THEY want to go.
But, as I said earlier on, the SV of today do not have the same altruistic intention for the future of the breed that von Stephanitz had. JMO
by bea on 10 June 2012 - 15:06
Javir doesn't have his elbows x-rayed, it normally would not have been possible for him to have been in the first ring at the Siegershow, it was done because of his placements at the BSP.
by Ibrahim on 10 June 2012 - 15:06
Aby said: who are breeding SL to what I would call superior WL in an effort to moderate where SL is going, or at least to see what the mix may produce.
Well IMO those show line breeders who breed to Wl dogs mostly do that to better the temperament and drives not to correct or get a moderate structure as that's not the goal.
If we talk about front and hind angulations as well as reach and allover harmony they will be adversely affected not bettered by breeding to Wl dogs.
IMO solidifying the temperament is worth what will be lost from type and structure as structure can be enhanced in two to three generations, taking into account the added benefits by breeding to Wl dogs such as bettering the hocks, ligaments and dryness it is worth it.
Most Sl breeders IMO avoid breeding to Wl dogs due to:
1. Afraid of loosing certain components conformation which are difficult to correct such as shoulder lay and front upper arm.
2. Coat type (and I mean coat type not color)
3. Expression
4. Add to that difficulty to sell the puppies and difficulty to win shows
If a breeder has a breeding program, like Arlett, it can be done with excellent results on the long run.
And one last point, I not only say that today's GSD structure is superior to any of the past, I also say that in the process today's GSD has serious issues to correct (in addition to temperament) loose rears & ligaments and to a less extent roach backs and flat withers (yes withers need also to be addressed).
Ibrahim
Well IMO those show line breeders who breed to Wl dogs mostly do that to better the temperament and drives not to correct or get a moderate structure as that's not the goal.
If we talk about front and hind angulations as well as reach and allover harmony they will be adversely affected not bettered by breeding to Wl dogs.
IMO solidifying the temperament is worth what will be lost from type and structure as structure can be enhanced in two to three generations, taking into account the added benefits by breeding to Wl dogs such as bettering the hocks, ligaments and dryness it is worth it.
Most Sl breeders IMO avoid breeding to Wl dogs due to:
1. Afraid of loosing certain components conformation which are difficult to correct such as shoulder lay and front upper arm.
2. Coat type (and I mean coat type not color)
3. Expression
4. Add to that difficulty to sell the puppies and difficulty to win shows
If a breeder has a breeding program, like Arlett, it can be done with excellent results on the long run.
And one last point, I not only say that today's GSD structure is superior to any of the past, I also say that in the process today's GSD has serious issues to correct (in addition to temperament) loose rears & ligaments and to a less extent roach backs and flat withers (yes withers need also to be addressed).
Ibrahim
by Ibrahim on 10 June 2012 - 15:06
We no more see pronounced well defined withers like these
Ulk von Arlett
.jpg)
Ulk von Arlett
by darylehret on 10 June 2012 - 19:06
by Abby Normal on 10 June 2012 - 22:06
Ibrahim
I must disagree with you. Working ability is not solely affected by temperament, it is also affected by structure - going back to the good old truism of form following function. Therefore moderation is sought in structure as well. The goal is improvement in the overall dog, not just one aspect of it.
Not everybody holds the view that the current structure of the modern GSD is superior or correct, we are told that by the SV (lets take the WGSL, Siegers as examples) but some ask the question whether the modern SL form is optimum to support the dog to perform in the way that it was intended to.
If current dogs are overangulated, angulation would be improved by breeding to WL not adversely affected. But, you have to believe or accept that many/most SL are overangulated. The SV themselves have said there is a problem with overangulation. This is where von Stephanitz would have stepped in to make corrections.
You talk about 'reach', but reach is really only a requirement for show, it actually serves no purpose. We are lured into breeding for flashiness in the show ring, this is where we are continually losing ground, and have been for the last 30 years. There is no reason to suppose that a dog which is more moderate in structure should not have harmony, nor a beautiful gait and natural reach, dogs of 30 years ago prove that.
Your final paragraph seems almost to be a contradiction in terms. With superior structure has come a host of structural issues. How can we then describe that structure as superior? If you build something that over time looks better (?) than models of previous years, but has many more problems than the original, can it really be superior?
BTW I am, unashamedly a fan of the dogs of 20/30 years ago, but you probably already figured that out!
I must disagree with you. Working ability is not solely affected by temperament, it is also affected by structure - going back to the good old truism of form following function. Therefore moderation is sought in structure as well. The goal is improvement in the overall dog, not just one aspect of it.
Not everybody holds the view that the current structure of the modern GSD is superior or correct, we are told that by the SV (lets take the WGSL, Siegers as examples) but some ask the question whether the modern SL form is optimum to support the dog to perform in the way that it was intended to.
If current dogs are overangulated, angulation would be improved by breeding to WL not adversely affected. But, you have to believe or accept that many/most SL are overangulated. The SV themselves have said there is a problem with overangulation. This is where von Stephanitz would have stepped in to make corrections.
You talk about 'reach', but reach is really only a requirement for show, it actually serves no purpose. We are lured into breeding for flashiness in the show ring, this is where we are continually losing ground, and have been for the last 30 years. There is no reason to suppose that a dog which is more moderate in structure should not have harmony, nor a beautiful gait and natural reach, dogs of 30 years ago prove that.
Your final paragraph seems almost to be a contradiction in terms. With superior structure has come a host of structural issues. How can we then describe that structure as superior? If you build something that over time looks better (?) than models of previous years, but has many more problems than the original, can it really be superior?
BTW I am, unashamedly a fan of the dogs of 20/30 years ago, but you probably already figured that out!
by Markobytes on 11 June 2012 - 04:06
Thank you Cliff for your kind words, You have challenged my way of thinking and have given me a perspective that will long stay with me. Thank you Ibrahim for expounding on Javir's ancestry. I would really like to see a thread where we could discuss temperament, thresholds, bidability, what are the ranges and how do we define the middle? I am glad you caught what I was saying Abby. However, I believe reach that comes from the shoulder and not a trick of the pasterns benefits the animal by wasting less energy, covering more ground and giving it more speed. I did note that Abby said natural reach. Red Sable, I am ashamed to confess that I have not taken a picture for myself in a long time and do not own a digital camera. A few people have taken pictures of me and my dogs but have not shared them with me. I will soon work on getting some pictures as I would like to post them along with the pedigrees. I will PM pictures to you as soon as possible. Joanro, I took the liberty of checking out your website and noticed that you have some nice looking dogs. I really like how you describe their individual temperaments. I would like to respectfully say I do not feel like we are getting the benefit of your knowledge in your posts. It has been a long day, I had club training in the morning. Good Night all, Hugh
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top