This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Shultz Anna on 13 December 2009 - 15:12
Today a friend of mine gave me a DVD on BBC Pedigree Dogs Exposed. After going through this I am somewhat confused. It actually questions the standards set for the breeds. According to them the pedigree dogs are dangerously inbreed which is insane from the point of view of the animals. And they blame competitive dog shows for this. They have shown what the breeds were 100 years back and what are they now. There is a striking difference. Further they have proved that all these changes have caused large number of genetic problems in most of the breeds which have made life difficult for them. They are actually in pain.
For GSD specifically they have shown few champion dogs including at Crufts whose hocks are wobbling from side to side. Top Orthopedic Vet Graham Oliver says, had there been more strength in the hind limbs, it would have been more solid with better coordination. He says majority of these dogs are not normal. They say critics call show GSDs half dog half frog. Crufts Judge, Terry Hannan says that the working dogs are not the correct version of the breed, and hence you will not see them in a show because anatomically they are not correct. However, the standard is supposed to be the blue print of the original breed.
Phew!!!!!!
For GSD specifically they have shown few champion dogs including at Crufts whose hocks are wobbling from side to side. Top Orthopedic Vet Graham Oliver says, had there been more strength in the hind limbs, it would have been more solid with better coordination. He says majority of these dogs are not normal. They say critics call show GSDs half dog half frog. Crufts Judge, Terry Hannan says that the working dogs are not the correct version of the breed, and hence you will not see them in a show because anatomically they are not correct. However, the standard is supposed to be the blue print of the original breed.
Phew!!!!!!
by Sunsilver on 13 December 2009 - 16:12
And this comes as a surprise to you??
There is probably not a single breed that looks exactly as it did when it first came into existence. Conformation fads come and go, and it seems the breed fancy can't help itself when it comes to tinkering with the dog's structure and appearance. If a little angulation is good, more MUST be better. If the standard calls for an egg-shaped head (bull terriers), or pushed-in face (bulldogs, other bully breeds) let's see just how much we can exaggerate that feature, and to heck with what it might do to the dog's health! Sometimes the breed standard changes to more closely resemble the dogs that are winning ribbons in the show ring, but more often than not it doesn't. The current fad supercedes the original breed standard.
Someone, somewhere needs to put a stop to all this. As one CKC all-breed judge recenty said in an article, any characteristic which detracts from the breed's health, or its ability to perform the job it was originally bred to do, needs to be penalized in the show ring, and removed from the breed standard.
Trying to get things to change, though, is like pissing into the wind....
There is probably not a single breed that looks exactly as it did when it first came into existence. Conformation fads come and go, and it seems the breed fancy can't help itself when it comes to tinkering with the dog's structure and appearance. If a little angulation is good, more MUST be better. If the standard calls for an egg-shaped head (bull terriers), or pushed-in face (bulldogs, other bully breeds) let's see just how much we can exaggerate that feature, and to heck with what it might do to the dog's health! Sometimes the breed standard changes to more closely resemble the dogs that are winning ribbons in the show ring, but more often than not it doesn't. The current fad supercedes the original breed standard.
Someone, somewhere needs to put a stop to all this. As one CKC all-breed judge recenty said in an article, any characteristic which detracts from the breed's health, or its ability to perform the job it was originally bred to do, needs to be penalized in the show ring, and removed from the breed standard.
Trying to get things to change, though, is like pissing into the wind....
by freemont on 14 December 2009 - 03:12
For GSDs then, all the more reason that showlines may be a detraction from the breed and should be shunned? Additionally, worklines emphasize ability and become more of a worthy metric?
This seems like a reasonable approach...
This seems like a reasonable approach...
by luvdemdogs on 14 December 2009 - 06:12
...and they worry about color.... <sigh>
by leeshideaway on 14 December 2009 - 06:12
Part of the trouble is that some matings done by various breeders result in to much angulation. (cow hocks or whatever)
Then the person with the camera chooses to make you see a dog that does not look so good.
Then they tell you that they are all no good.
I hope you do not believe them.
There are nice showline dogs out there but you must look.
One main part that bugs me is it seems that the show judges should not reward over angulated dogs.
At one time I had two dogs, one not as good in the conformation as the other.
(back was more level and front legs were a little short - a little short in the croup)
The level back dog could sprint fast on a gallop for short distances.
However it could not keep up with the dog that had better conformation on long distances.
(slow or fast)
When I look for a dog, conformation is one of many ingredients I look for.
You can find some structure information on this website.- PDB Angulation
You can find the SV breed standard translated by Fred Lanting here - Click this link
freemont,
Shunning "showlines" will not help the breed.
Not buying or breeding over angulated dogs is a nice first step.
A whole bunch of people complaining to the SV at once might raise a few eyebrows.
What also helps is visit a breeder, look at the dogs and tell them you are not interested in over angulated dogs.
Or ask them why they are doing it.
First you must know the standard because they will challenge you.
Who do you think gives working line dogs the V rating or KKL1 rating?
Lee
Then the person with the camera chooses to make you see a dog that does not look so good.
Then they tell you that they are all no good.
I hope you do not believe them.
There are nice showline dogs out there but you must look.
One main part that bugs me is it seems that the show judges should not reward over angulated dogs.
At one time I had two dogs, one not as good in the conformation as the other.
(back was more level and front legs were a little short - a little short in the croup)
The level back dog could sprint fast on a gallop for short distances.
However it could not keep up with the dog that had better conformation on long distances.
(slow or fast)
When I look for a dog, conformation is one of many ingredients I look for.
You can find some structure information on this website.- PDB Angulation
You can find the SV breed standard translated by Fred Lanting here - Click this link
freemont,
Shunning "showlines" will not help the breed.
Not buying or breeding over angulated dogs is a nice first step.
A whole bunch of people complaining to the SV at once might raise a few eyebrows.
What also helps is visit a breeder, look at the dogs and tell them you are not interested in over angulated dogs.
Or ask them why they are doing it.
First you must know the standard because they will challenge you.
Who do you think gives working line dogs the V rating or KKL1 rating?
Lee
by freemont on 14 December 2009 - 19:12
Lee,
Your response had much food for thought contained within. Thank you for the links, as well.
It seems likely that it is more attainable to focus on a subset of the breed- that of the working lines- than to create a revolution on the part of consumers, breeders that cater to them, and judges that often cater to the breeders. Perhaps, connoisseurs should simply focus on the greatness of the working gsd by preserving the regional differences and creating regional hybrids to build a better worker.
To draw a comparison, the producers of milk who did not want to use bovine growth hormone on their stock, helped build the market supply for organic milk as an alternate. These growers did not and could not fight the tide of bgh within their own industry. Here, I think this is a good parallel for a segment of the gsd community focusing on the workinglines, as the market demand for an over-angulated and "weaker" gsd is too great.
The industrialization of animal husbandry has discarded many of the old breeds of cattle. However, there are thankfully a few institutions and individuals who have maintained stocks of the old breeds- the rare breeds. Likely these gene pools may need to be studied and reintroduced into common use in the future for the needs and demands of livestock change. Similarly, perhaps the working gsd community should seriously consider keeping certain regional distinctions by preserving these bloodlines. We commonly refer to these regions as Czech, Eastern German, etc. but we needn't be constricted by national boundaries when considering a regional distinction.
When all is said and done, what was the goal set forth by von Stephanitz when isolating the GSD as a breed? He was concerned that this particular group of working dogs from a particular region were going to be lost forever. The shepherd dog from Germany was going to be lost because the industry of farming was changing and because frivolous tastes of pet owners were demanding "ornamental" dogs and not working canines.
We would do well to continue on with the quest set forth by the founder himself.
Thank you,
Freemont.
Your response had much food for thought contained within. Thank you for the links, as well.
It seems likely that it is more attainable to focus on a subset of the breed- that of the working lines- than to create a revolution on the part of consumers, breeders that cater to them, and judges that often cater to the breeders. Perhaps, connoisseurs should simply focus on the greatness of the working gsd by preserving the regional differences and creating regional hybrids to build a better worker.
To draw a comparison, the producers of milk who did not want to use bovine growth hormone on their stock, helped build the market supply for organic milk as an alternate. These growers did not and could not fight the tide of bgh within their own industry. Here, I think this is a good parallel for a segment of the gsd community focusing on the workinglines, as the market demand for an over-angulated and "weaker" gsd is too great.
The industrialization of animal husbandry has discarded many of the old breeds of cattle. However, there are thankfully a few institutions and individuals who have maintained stocks of the old breeds- the rare breeds. Likely these gene pools may need to be studied and reintroduced into common use in the future for the needs and demands of livestock change. Similarly, perhaps the working gsd community should seriously consider keeping certain regional distinctions by preserving these bloodlines. We commonly refer to these regions as Czech, Eastern German, etc. but we needn't be constricted by national boundaries when considering a regional distinction.
When all is said and done, what was the goal set forth by von Stephanitz when isolating the GSD as a breed? He was concerned that this particular group of working dogs from a particular region were going to be lost forever. The shepherd dog from Germany was going to be lost because the industry of farming was changing and because frivolous tastes of pet owners were demanding "ornamental" dogs and not working canines.
We would do well to continue on with the quest set forth by the founder himself.
Thank you,
Freemont.
by freemont on 15 December 2009 - 16:12
This is a pivitol topic for our breed. Because of its popularity, the GSD has been under siege when it comes to quality control from the get-go. Anyone care to join in?
by VomMarischal on 15 December 2009 - 17:12
Breed standards? We don't need no steenking breed standards!
And I'll tell ya why. Even though I think the above PDB link to the drawing of what a GSD should look like is RIGHT ON, only a small percentage of us DO. I breed a litter about every 3 years, and I try really hard to make my puppies turn out like the ones John Riboni is importing, because he's smarter than I am. So...my puppies actually do look like the dog in that photo. Yippee!
So what I'm trying to say is, what good is a breed standard if everybody does as they jolly well please anyhow? Everyone knows what that picture looks like, but some of us look at the standard and say COOL! and others look at it and say WTF? I don't know what good a standard is if 2/3 of the people breeding think it's the wrong standard...including judges.
And I'll tell ya why. Even though I think the above PDB link to the drawing of what a GSD should look like is RIGHT ON, only a small percentage of us DO. I breed a litter about every 3 years, and I try really hard to make my puppies turn out like the ones John Riboni is importing, because he's smarter than I am. So...my puppies actually do look like the dog in that photo. Yippee!
So what I'm trying to say is, what good is a breed standard if everybody does as they jolly well please anyhow? Everyone knows what that picture looks like, but some of us look at the standard and say COOL! and others look at it and say WTF? I don't know what good a standard is if 2/3 of the people breeding think it's the wrong standard...including judges.
by VomMarischal on 15 December 2009 - 17:12
Here's some irony for you......
.jpg)
by luvdemdogs on 16 December 2009 - 07:12
LOL!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top