Size Matters - Page 3

I find that the large shepherds are quite agile when they are young, but break down much quicker the older they get. The smaller ones can work the streets and the sport for more years. This whole heavy boned look makes a dog that at 6 years has a huge rib cage and trouble getting over the A frame. As for more size being better in protection, I would beg to differ. What matters is the strength of the kill thrash, and the hardness of the bite, not the size of the dog. Give me my correct standard dogs any day. If I put that much work into training the dog, I want them to be competing at Nationals at age 6 (and before and beyond), not getting outrun by the helper on the escape.

As far as the example of the 100 lb rottweiler, I knew a 60 pound rottie that took the helper down routinely. Had nothing to do with her size, just her strength, kill thrash, and of course, that rottwieler gravity in their butt thing. And again, I would ask, how are those dogs when they turn 6 and 8 years old? Are they still as agile, or are they getting injured and broken down?

No. The standard is for the dogs good, changing it is for the people. Breed for what is best for the dog, not the people. Any one want to buy a 1971 Oldsmobile? 20 ft. long and 5500 lbs. Now that's a car.

I like the ones within the standard.  They are big enough to do anything we want.

I like the ones within the standard.  They are big enough to do anything we want.

I would ask, how are those dogs when they turn 6 and 8 years old? Are they still as agile, or are they getting injured and broken down?

My old male (now deceased) was 63 cm and completed his SchH3 past his 8th birthday--then, earned his AKC CD and CDX titlesduring the following year.

His two 64 cm grandsons (SchH3 IPO3) are past 8.5 and 6 ears old respectively. The older one (74#) has always seemed as if he has pneumatic bones (like those of a bird).  When he does his courage test, he launches himself and becomes airborne about 8 feet away from the helper. He was recently mistaken for 3 or 4 years old by both a vet and by a long-time breeder. His recent semen analysis reflected excellent numbers, motility, and morphology.

The younger half-brother (78#) looks roughly the same age.

My 11-year-old-plus female  is 57 cm and normally weighs ~60#. She remains surprisingly agile and athletic--easily jumps on and off a grooming table or into and out of a crate in my van--the crate sits on a platform that is elevated ~10 inches from the floor of the van.

BTW, all of these dogs have be on a mostly raw diet for years.

NO Thankyou!  The GSD (DS) is first and foremost designed to be a working dog, not a show only dog.

I worked a large showline dog on the street before.  It sucks having to put a 90-100LB dog into an attic

and then hoping to hell he doesn't go through the ceiling, get stuck in the crawl space, kill your back

getting him down.  Not to mention the clumsy factor.  Plus try fitting a very large dog into the garbage can

on wheels that the dopers drive.  I will keep my "correct middle sized" working dog.   My current middle sized dog is faster

on the field work and more agile to boot.

Colleen and K9 Barbie

"Nothing says BEHAVE like a fur critter"

I too like a larger dog, about 26 inches for a male, maybe 85 lbs or lighter. But I don't want a dog who ends up with bad hips or elbows because whats the point of having a dog that stands 30 inches and weighs 110 pounds, but needs lay down because his hips can't take the extra weight.

I have a 1.5 year old male GSD, who measures 28in.  I do worry about his joints, but he has always been lean.  I've had GSD's and other dogs for years, and this one happens to have exceptional speed and agility both.  In fact, he can out-pace our female greyhound.   While I would not consider myself a proponent of raising the height of the breed standard, I can testify to the fact that the larger dogs lack nothing in terms of any of their smaller counterparts' working ability. 

Not a GSD breeder, but would definitely vote a resounding "NO" to raising the standard size for the reasons already stated here. I'll add one, a large dog not only lacks the athleticism and agility needed to tend a large flock 24/7  it also lacks the endurance needed. I've seen it in a lot of other breeds where breeders thought bigger was better.  In most cases these were AKC breeds bred only for the show ring where judges seem to reward the bigger dogs. The result is dogs that are too large and overdone to get thejob done. They tire easily and cannot perform as intended. 

There are already enough negative trends in this breed - overly short and heavy muzzles, Akita-like heads with too much stop, short legs, barrel shaped ribs,  dogs that can't move their way ouf of a paper bag without crabbing, interfering and humping their already roachy backlines. IMO increasing size would only serve to add one more negative to the mix.

Though I challenge your assertion regarding agility and athleticism of larger GSD's (largely because I own living, breathing proof), I must agree that from what I observe personally, endurance does suffer some.