This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Slamdunc on 13 February 2011 - 17:02
I have only seen a few good show line gsd when it comes to protection
Well, there's your answer..............
And you said:
Now to the point at hand. Could it be that the dogs are perfectly fine working quality. Could it in fact be the handlers transfering a lack of confidence and unsureness throug the leash, thus making these dogs more prone to being ran, and chewy grips or general disinterest in the work its self?
Ummmm no, not really. What you are describing is largely genetic and then there is poor training on top of poor working ability. Look at the US Sieger Show and see how many poorly trained dogs were being exhibited in a National event. Most (not all) SL people only do SchH because they have too and it shows; in both the dogs and the performance.
JMO FWIW,
Jim
Well, there's your answer..............
And you said:
Now to the point at hand. Could it be that the dogs are perfectly fine working quality. Could it in fact be the handlers transfering a lack of confidence and unsureness throug the leash, thus making these dogs more prone to being ran, and chewy grips or general disinterest in the work its self?
Ummmm no, not really. What you are describing is largely genetic and then there is poor training on top of poor working ability. Look at the US Sieger Show and see how many poorly trained dogs were being exhibited in a National event. Most (not all) SL people only do SchH because they have too and it shows; in both the dogs and the performance.
JMO FWIW,
Jim
by VonIsengard on 13 February 2011 - 20:02
Bare minimum training done by necessity only has certainly permitted far more weak dogs into the showline gene pool. It does mean not all showlines are weaker.
It is actually quite difficult to breed showlines when you want strong dogs. Choosing studs is a bit of a nightmare, for me, anyway. If I see a dog with a pedigree that I know should be gentically stacked to work well, but it's work is lackluster, I now must ask myself- is it training? or is it the dog? Many times, it is training. Many times, it is not. I prefer to never "assume" that the problem must be training, roll the dice, and breed to the dog anyway. So this means I am potentially writing off dogs who really are good, just poorly trained, all the time. Very frustrating.
If the work is "just ok" not fabulous, not terrible, just sort of in between, now you have pull on personal experience. Look at the pedigree. Have you seen more strong dogs or more weak dogs from these line/linebreeding? Have you seen siblings, or better yet, progeny? I've seen dogs over the years with quite bad performance tests and yet every puppy I see from that male is a beast. Safe to say there it is training, but if you don't have benefit of seeing or working with that progeny, of course, you should never take that chance. I would breed to a "just ok" dog if I regularly saw progeny from that dog with excellent drives, and that dog had everything I was looking for- health, lines, not extreme angulation, etc.
When a showline dog performs well, either by polished performance or by unpolished with raw talent, it's almost never due to "good training" covering up a faulted dog. Let's face it, trainers with that kind of talent don't lean toward showlines. Very few showlines at all ever get the benefit of being worked by the very best. So when I see a showline with strength, it's safe to say that dog is the real deal.
It is actually quite difficult to breed showlines when you want strong dogs. Choosing studs is a bit of a nightmare, for me, anyway. If I see a dog with a pedigree that I know should be gentically stacked to work well, but it's work is lackluster, I now must ask myself- is it training? or is it the dog? Many times, it is training. Many times, it is not. I prefer to never "assume" that the problem must be training, roll the dice, and breed to the dog anyway. So this means I am potentially writing off dogs who really are good, just poorly trained, all the time. Very frustrating.
If the work is "just ok" not fabulous, not terrible, just sort of in between, now you have pull on personal experience. Look at the pedigree. Have you seen more strong dogs or more weak dogs from these line/linebreeding? Have you seen siblings, or better yet, progeny? I've seen dogs over the years with quite bad performance tests and yet every puppy I see from that male is a beast. Safe to say there it is training, but if you don't have benefit of seeing or working with that progeny, of course, you should never take that chance. I would breed to a "just ok" dog if I regularly saw progeny from that dog with excellent drives, and that dog had everything I was looking for- health, lines, not extreme angulation, etc.
When a showline dog performs well, either by polished performance or by unpolished with raw talent, it's almost never due to "good training" covering up a faulted dog. Let's face it, trainers with that kind of talent don't lean toward showlines. Very few showlines at all ever get the benefit of being worked by the very best. So when I see a showline with strength, it's safe to say that dog is the real deal.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top