Can I ask A stupid question...w/o being crucified? - Page 5

I could show you a BYB junk yard GSD with no papers who would eat your cop and his dog, and the car they arrived in, if thats all a German Shepherd dog is supposed to be.
Yes it's in the genetics and this dog was bred for this purpose only.
I doubt that the dog has much to do with either line (sl/wl), but has more to do with selective breeding for a limited purpose.
This is where the problem becomes what I can tunnel vision.

The breed is more than that to me.


Moons.

I have deleted my post because it was just too stupid for words.

hi sue,
And how are you today....
In the first place you misunderstand my post.
In the second, we're not talking about my dogs.

The point is if your going to be selective you must look to the individual and not consider chasing solely after just a certain bloodline.

Any individual from whatever lines your looking at can have the qualities you seek, they can also from the same lines have faults.

Throw out the tunnel vision perhaps it's not good term for the situation.   

Point is people do have rather closed minds about breeding animals of all kinds.    I've seen this in all my years of experience with everything from pigeons to beef, horses, dogs, you name it.

Yes, some people only look at what they want to see and the rest goes un-noticed.  
Stephanitz himself built this breed using ways that would be unheard of today, I doubt he put much store in other peoples opinions about what he was doing at the time.

I'm sorry if you feel I was holding myself above anyone, I don't see the incline or the drop off.

As far as standards, everyone has them including me and yes it is all open to interpretation isn't it.

Don't hold back, express yourself,  I don't mind at all.
But one thing is fact, dogs did not become dogs just to satisfy our ego's and they are not beasts of burden.
They deserve a full life, and many never get that from what I've seen in all my years of experience.

You give and take opinions in a very personal way there Sue, no need to be so personal.

Moons.

Sorry  I misunderstood your intent, Moons.  Yeah, bad day here, I shouldn't have taken it out on you.

We've known each other best we can anyway, for more than just a little while.
I don't mind at all......:)

Moons.

Thanks, I appreciate that.  I deleted my stupid rant.

     I'm getting ready to come up here and explain my reasoning for this post. I'm working on pedigrees, and plans (my plan)my program.
     It is not a short term "program", I have been working at it  a long time, and it WILL take  a great deal of dedication on my part (I'm already dedicated to my dogs). I'm gonna tell you what I got, what I want, and what I'm hoping to achieve, and "improve on".
      I can't tell everyone enough, that has commented on this thread, how much I appreciate their input, whether good, bad or indifferent.
     I am in no way an expert, and have a "great deal LESS knowledge" than many (most), that post serious topics here. I love MY dogs, Iove the breed.  I have respect for those that came before me, and look forward to hearing from those that will follow.
     

Von Stephanitz foresaw this split and gave the reason for it. He could foresee this because even then, as now, there was a "beauty v. function" split in many breeds. Here is what he has to say about aptly named SHOW lines (and those who breed only for insane drive):


As with so many breeds, sport and fad breeding led to more severe evidence of natural traits, and therefore to bad breeding situations that had nothing more in common with working ability. This may seem nice to the faddist, however, for the true lover of Nature, who doesn’t engage in matters based on eye appeal, it appears as a strange caricature.
Over-sized, massiveness, height, racing ability, straight front or tucked up racing dog body would be for the shepherd an adverse perception leading to the death of the breed. And actually, some of our dogs and especially those who receive applause among the novices resemble the racing dog type in his over-sized, narrowness, tucked up appearance and effemination. The Borzoi, who hunts the wolf on the Russian prairies does not look like this; he is still a correct, rugged fellow. He who looks around at dog shows, pages through dog magazines, will find often enough that there are still a few other breed’s destinies which are threatened, that is, they are about to step out of their breed type because they are not bred upon a breed goal, but rather upon an imaginary “beauty concept”.  

My main “warning-cry” concerns itself with the direction of the breed, which many breeders – many novices – still subscribe to, a direction that would lead us off the beaten path, far off of our breed goal; toward breed ruin.
In all my articles, lectures, and judges reports of the last few years, I have desperately tried to point out that we must cling to the breed standard of the working dog, and I gave reasons why we must do so – as it was once laid down, as a model of the breed’s design. I have emphasized over and over again that we should not get overly engrossed in details of outward characteristics, even if they are ever so attractive, when, for the breeding value of the dog, he must be based entirely and decisively upon the totality of hard constitution, good health, endurance, authentic working structure and stable temperament.
The vision, the understanding of this standard, is thus sometimes lost. Many young fanciers have unfortunately hardly ever seen correct conformation in respect to these dogs. They become intoxicated with appearance which so often has so little in common with the working dog as he is supposed to be. In this case, the only thing that helps is trusted faith in the system, until one’s pondering leads to eventual understanding. The belief in what is well meant – the thoughtful suggestions and guiding principles – are for the welfare of the breed’s future.

Well at least I know that I'm not crazy!!, after reading the founders views!!

never mind, bad day at black rock is coloring my mind!