Trimming hair, taping ears,Whats the difference? - Page 4

PSP: You started this thread with a statement that you thought it hypocritical to "disguise another major DQ genetic fault". Then Louise & Palestar took the time to describe many situations where the ears need help standing, but for environmental reasons, not genetic. You respond with "taping ears is altering the appearance". Okay, so you think dogs with a "major DQ genetic fault" should be bred, but dogs whos ears don't stand purely because of environmental issues are OUT? I'm guessing you have a coat with really nice ears. By the way, I would guess the majority of people who frequent this board would agree there is a real problem in dogs that win in the AKC ring, and it extends even beyond the over angulated dogs, poor temperments, and non-existent working ability. For that matter, UKC is just as bad, nothing but a beauty pageant, and no number of wins in either AKC or UKC would ever be enough reason to breed to a dog.

I've heard a number of times that lots of people do X and dont get caught... or... it's considered acceptable to do "this" but not "this." My question is, are we resorting to doing whatever we wont get caught at? or at least what everyone else is considering ok? What happened to doing what wasn't popular because it happened to be the right thing? Now, obviously defining the "right" thing is a real problem because opinions vary so widely on what we all "interpret" the breed standard or perfect dog to be. Sue mentioned that no number of wins in the akc or ukc and I would add SV show ring are reason enough to breed a dog. But neither is any amount of wins on the sch field alone reason enough to breed a dog. We are talking about the entire dog, not bits and pieces. And as far as I have ever seen there has never been the perfect dog.. ok I take that back, I have a dog at home who's darn close... as I'm sure we all do, but the point is, how do we effectively, objectively maximize the positives and minimize the negatives? What are the positives? Is that working temperament? or moderate temperament? Is there a difference? Can a moderate drive be a working drive? Can working drive be a moderate dog? Does it boil down to training and socialization? I am not sure there will EVER be an answer and I dont think that because I might disagree with person B, that that makes me right and them wrong. What I do think however is, that doing whatever others are doing and not getting caught at is a BAD way to look at things.

Sue, As to why you want to drag my own dog into this debate I don't have a clue. "My guess" is that you simply do not have any facts to refute me so you resort to a personal attack. But, since you asked: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/473173.html Is my girl, whom I love and am very proud of. As for bad ears being environmental or genetic I have seen no proof one way or another. I would say more than likely it is a genetic based issue that can be aggravated by environment. The suggestion made by Louise, who I respect a great deal by the way, that shaving a few mg of hair off might save a dog's ears does not seem right to me either. No I am not saying that dogs with faults should be shown and bred, quite the contrary, I am saying that correcting ANY genetic fault is "cheating" but that it is done all the time and apparently acceptable.

I was not attacking you, just asking what you had. My point was that perhaps the faults we don't mind as much are those that our own dogs have, or in areas we place less emphasis on. I think that's human nature, all of us are kennel blind to an extent. My own dog is a working line, so his conformation faults are minor in my eyes but his straighter shoulder & steep croup is glaring and unacceptable to others. I agree, correcting any genetic fault is cheating, I do not agree that it is done all the time and is acceptable.

So you expect someone to refute what, exactly? What argument did you put forth that can be refuted?

ProudShepherdPoppa: "The suggestion made by Louise, who I respect a great deal by the way, that shaving a few mg of hair off might save a dog's ears does not seem right to me either." ************************************************************************************************* While it may not seem "right" to you--trust me, I have not exaggerated. Actually, I made this "discovery" quite by accident. Your are unlikely to find this annecdote in any of the literature. In the late 90's, when a breeder friend referred one of his puppy buyers to me for ear taping, the owner presented me with a 6-month-old LC (pretty much of a "rug") female. I took one look at all that fur on the ears and concluded that pink hair rollers and porous surgical tape would not hold well because of the excess hair. Therefore, I clipped (electric clippers with #40 blade) the hair inside of and on the back of each ear. Yep--BOING--up came the ears!! No taping was ever required. Perhaps a year later, still another breeder sent a client to me with a 4.5-month-old pup (again a LC, as I recall). Upon seeing the pup, I explained that I preferred not to tape ears on a pup that young and asked the owner to return in another month. However, before the owner left, I decided to experiment and asked him to wait and allow me to clip the hair inside and outside the ears. Once again--same scenario as above--BOING--erect ears. I told the owner to return in a month if the ears did not remain standing. I never saw the pup again. I usually charge a nominal fee for taping ears of pups bred by others. I guarantee that the ears will come up--even if subsequent tapings are needed--at no additional charge. Why would I turn down a fee for my services? OTH, I don't charge a red cent for clipping the hair off the ears. This is simply good PR. The remaining 4 out of 5 environmental scenarios (which I have outlined previously) are right on the money, too. Proof is in the pudding!! As for Shepherd Woman, not only is her dog a cosmetically-altered LC, he is oversized (> 66cm) and suffers from recurrent hot spots (for which he is scheduled to have allergy skin testing).

ROFL, if my dog was "oversized" he would not be allowed in the ring! Get off of it Louise!

Shepherd Woman: "ROFL, if my dog was "oversized" he would not be allowed in the ring!" *********************************************************************************************** SW, that is so much BS!! Do they routinely measure dogs at UKC shows? They surely don't at AKC shows. In the past, I have seen 28-inch-tall GSDCA Grand Victors and 70cm-tall VA dogs. Unfortunately, the AKC does not require verification of height. However, the SV is currently strictly inforcing height limits by measuring. A normal-coated 66cm male (with the usual mandatory credentials) would only be eligible for a KKl2. A dog =/> 67cm is not eligible for a breed survey.

Louise have you measured my dog lately? or at all??????? My dog is 26 inches and he is not going to get any taller, even I know that much, lol. And he is not over weight either! Like I said just get off of it, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, lol.

I'll make ya a deal Louise, lol. The day that a "judge" says my dog has too long of hair for the ring OR is over sized for the ring, I will STOP showing him and will NOT breed him. Until then stay the hell out of my business and mind your own business! You seem to have way too much time on your hands and have nothing better to do then bash people whos dogs are different than yours. That goes for a few of you on here! I cannot believe the response in PM's that I have gotten from people on here since my post on the "Denial" thread. I will not give names, but they ALL agree and had plenty to say, but I know will not say it on here for fear of retaliation by the "no it alls" on here! And that's all I have to say!!!! For now any way, LOL.