WL + SL = BL??? - Page 14

So I have been trying to follow this topic and not get to irked by the bickering but.... here's some food for thought   So "they" say don't do the cross because it produces inconstant future producers - right...? Ok, so tell me who really over many generations consistently does consistently produce consistent producers? (of any line, shape, size and or color...)   "They" also say only leave crossing to the experienced breeders - How do you think those breeders gained all that experience?  I can say they sure as daylight did not get it from the internet nor did they get it from following the "norm" and doing only what "they" told them to do.   I love sushi, and I know the thought of even touching raw fish is repulsive to some (let alone dunking it in wasabi and soy sauce and eating a platter of it).  Pot luck and pot sticker are great too....   As with most of the comments I add to the more controversial topics I'm sure I'll have posters remorse but it is what it is....   P.S. excellent post Gustav  

If we weren't breeding what we "liked" I don't know that anyone would breed at all.  I'd kind of like to challenge anyone to offer a more thorough description of what "balanced" should mean.

Gustav:
You get no argument from me on the color bias.  But it can be done... 

I'll also concede that the market for such a "cross" is relatively narrow and is probably being serviced by working line kennels as most showlines are not quite of the required temperament and drives.

The main change would have to take place at the top, just as it did when blacks, grays and sables were sumarily taken out of contention in conformation shows.

Sometimes, I think about how people claim they want to go to a stud/female to improve something in their dog.I guess it isn't that big of a deal if it is something minor, but if there is something that needs to be improved, why breed your dog? There are more than enough Pups out there. Why not just get a puppy out of the improving mate and a like female or male? This goes for all lines. If I have a female that is great in every way, but I want to improve or make sure aggression, or prey, etc are passed, I would go to a mate that is producing such. But if I have a pretty dog with below average anything, breeding to the best dog does nothing. Want to improve the breed? Stop breeding garbage.

Daryl, I don't know if I missed something, but to me, balanced is like a car stereo. You can go right to left, front to back, mess with the base and treble. I like a balanced dog. Right now, I have a dog that is too, too many things. Super civil, defense, sharp, etc. But now I have to give you my definitions of those things.

Daryl,  excellent point about "liked"...but it is kind of what I have been saying....it really isn't a crime to "like" something...defining "balanced" as you well know...will be difficult.  I would simplify balanced for myself as: an animal trusted in all aspects on and off the field around people, animals, and all environmental factors.
Gustav, also an excellent post but in my humble opinion...you always lose a little bit of credibility when you attack the SL side and make believe the WL side is perfect! ("SL world to ever gain respect again". )  Respect from whom??  The Wl side? The SV?
Personally, I have no use whatsoever for a dog that wins competitions running in circles looking pretty.  But some people do and if makes the happy...more power to them...but I also have no use for a GSD that is a beast on the field but looks more like a wild Dingo dog than a GSD.  Again personal opinion so everyone relax.
Now, if that person, shampooing his / her dog and foo fooing the dog to make it look pretty to run in circles, (because that is what they like) why not make it so that same dog could perform on a sch field if it were trained to do so?  And the reverse,  A beast on the field that could perform well in show if that is what his owner wanted?  I KNOW THERE ARE BOTH OF THOSE RIGHT NOW!!!! (and probably more so on the WL side).  But my point is why not work to make it more the norm than the abberation?

Which brings me to my next point...YES, there are problems with the breeders not coming together to do this..but it seems to me, (and I am only going by what you more experienced people have said) that the real problem lies in the judging of these great animals.  Titles should be sacred and earned.  If titles lose value EVERYTHING is compromised and the value of the breed is lessened.  It is disturbing to think there are SCHIII dogs that could hardly pass basic obedience...that, in my line of work, is fraud!  Why is this important (at least this is what I am learning)?  It is important because if lines are to be chosen for better breeding...one must have COMPLETE confidence in the pedigrees before him / her.  It would seem to me that the last several generations have been compromised in that department.  Also the judging body should be made of of enthusiasts / experts from both sides or those neutral to all (in a perfect world).  If a Wl dog falls within the required standards (height, weight, etc) it should be equally judged in the Sl regardless of markings.  By the same token if a SL dog looks awesome but cannot at least demonstrate a certain amount of working ability...it should win nothing (doesn't need to be a beast...but a standard of minimum focus , drive, and intelligence needs to be set).  I REALLY REALLY am pissed about the cheapening of titles...it goes to honor and integrity...and when that is gone...there is no worth.

Finally,  I think the other problem (and this is kind of a good problem) is that this dog is so versatile and so much is required / expected of them (show, work, herding, service etc) that it is very difficult to come up with one "standard" accepted by all.

This is what I have learned and it is my two cents and at the end of the day, that is probably all it is worth.


   




 

We always hear about these cheap titles... could someone please tell me which judges give them away for free?  I'm tired of working so hard and would love to have some dogs skid through without as much prep as I currently put in.  :)

I read a passage today in "Darwin on Trial" that's sort of relevant here.

Artificial selection is not basically the same sort of thing as natural selection, but rather is something fundamentally different.  Human breeders produce variations among sheep or pigeons for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight in seeing how much variation can be achieved.  If the breeders were only interested in having animals capable of surviving in the wild, the extremes of variation would not exist.  When domesticated animals return to the wild state, the most highly specialized breeds quickly perish and the survivors revert to the original wild type.  Natural selection is a conservative force that prevents the appearance of the extremes of variation that human breeders like to encourage.
 

So, what is the purpose of breeding, if not to encourage variation toward a usefeul purpose in serving humans?  In my opinion, the fundamental difference between a wild dog and a domesticated dog, is that the dog seeks to serve it's fellow man.  A strong attentiveness to the handler's needs is a primary form of extreme variation I would seek in my breeding.  Would that make my dog imbalanced?  No variation at all would be a very dull and useless dog, in my opinion.

LOL -  Darylehret - soooo if outward appearance is so insubstantial of a breeding quality why would you use this type of description in one of your classified ads?
  http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/classifieds/150737.html   Examples of this cross @ 5 months old below, but note that the current litter is much darker coloration.

Does darker coloration mean a better working dog or a more marketable/saleable dog? Or just what you would rather look at? 

I'm 100% cool with the agree to disagree mentality but how long does everyone need to chase their proverbial tails in a circle...? 

You've completely missed my point.  Where did I ever say appearance wasn't important to me, or "insubstantial of breeding quality"?  I don't believe that, but I also don't subscribe to the showline philosophy on structure.  Why would I advertise a litter and omit a description of it's appearance?  In that ad, I displayed previous examples of the same cross for structure's sake, but they were misrepresentative of the actual color.  HA, SO THERE!  EVERYthing has a dang structure, right?  Mine just happen to be closer to the "original wild type" than the showline dogs with their saggy butt, and like it or not, color sells.  Solid blacks and dark sables among the most favored.  Doesn't at all mean I bred FOR that, just that what IS, IS, and that's how I'm telling it!