Why can North American GSD breeders never seem to breed world class dogs?? - Page 39

Susie, I agree with you, absolutely. However, the BEST gsd police K9s which are not breed worthy does not say much for the requirements to be the best LE k9.
Likewise, the gsd was not created to be a sport dog, but should be able to pass the test which has evolved into sport.

why is the fact that some dogs with titles are crap being used as a ''trump card''? It makes for a poor reason not to title your dog. Why are ''night trial'' used as a reason not to title? I witness one ''night trial'' here in the States and made a formal  protested  many years ago. I saw rules designed to stop the nasty phenonem , What if no one did any titles or health checks because ''everyone else is doing it''. I do not jog because someone across the street from my parents house 25 years ago, had a heart attack and died doing just that.

the next logical progression ''to some dogs have titles and do not deserve them'' is why I do not title my breed stock is;  since the AKC or SV allows this to happen, I will not paper my dogs. As a protest, to the injustice to my great breed, hence forth all of my pure bred pups will not have papers. that'll show 'em !!!!!!!!!

So it's once again become about breeders again with "untitled/untested stock" who don't meet "minimum standards" (like so many other threads beat to death here.)  All I can say is, I personally don't see any serious competing handlers even ATTEMPTING to take prospects from that sort of breeding to the world class level.  Please point them out to me, if you know otherwise.

To the few commentors that seem to be subtly referencing ME because I cared to share my point of view, take note: Breeding "world class dogs" isn't and never was my concern, and the only dogs I ever proposed breeding to outside stud dogs DID meet the so-called "minimum requirements" for breeding.  Those breeders had a blanket policy of exclusive use of their studs.  I don't WANT for my pups the kind of handler that high level competition attracts.  That's not why I breed.

gsdstudent

To Joanro: " but should be able to pass the test which has evolved into sport...."

Training in itself is not identical with "sport".
I don´t know you, but if you ever trained a green dog to a SchH1 or more you know that during these months you learned a lot more about your dog as you ever would without training.
It´s about handling of stress, hardness, courage, concentration, sensibility, and on and on  ( Sorry, I can´t translate most of my thoughts, lack of English...)
Think about tracking, obedience, bitework, all of it different, but a German Shepherd should be able to do it, ´cause it´s a versatile dog.
During training you SEE your dog, its advantages and its disadvantages, the best proof for any breeder.
In my country even the HGH dogs have to go through the breed survey, even they have to do the belittled bitework, too, because they are German Shepherds and a dog not able to do so is not breedworthy.

I for myself don´t want to buy a puppy out of a police K9 without proof of temperament and conformation if I didn´t have the possibility to see the dog in real ( teeth, testicles, size...).
It´s not only about working ability, but about the breed, too.

I'm some where in the middle on this one. I see it two ways. I think training if it is only basic obedience, is a must for all. You owe that to your dog and your self.

If I'm selecting a dog for breeding the first question that has to be answered is, what am I seeing in the untrained dog that comes natural ? Does he have natural protection, natural aggression, natural herding instincts, does he naturally love tracking? Or is he just a dog that has good trainability, that excepts the conditioned actions that has been instilled in him by repetition.

I think you can go over board with both. A dog with a high degree of trainability is good, but if that is all you are interested in, you better be as good as the trainer his parent stock had or you won't have much in the end.

A top trainer can help a dog, no question about that. But I don't want to ever get to the point to where I base a decision on selection based on quality of training. That does not get passed on. That is why so many get a pup based on a finished product that has had many hrs. of repetitious training that is not passed on in the mating. Most people do not get a dog because they are interested in sport training, but want a dog for a specific purpose. It may be herding, property protection, k9 work, etc. based on genetics, not hrs. and hrs. of professional training.

I want to see what the dogs inherited characteristics are, not what a top trainer is capable of producing. Is not that what breeding is about. Your top breeders even in cutting horses have enough sense to know if a horse don't have enough cow in him, move him off to some other venue. that is more suited to the horses inherited characteristics. But a lot of dog people just look for a trainer to remake the dog into what they want him to be, not what he is. But squeeze the tube and what's really in it will come out.

Hank

 

Desert Dog: "If I'm selecting a dog for breeding the first question that has to be answered is, what am I seeing in the untrained dog that comes natural ? Does he have natural protection, natural aggression, natural herding instincts, does he naturally love tracking?"

You DO select...
But there is a difference between the willingness to do something and the capability to do so - without further training you won´t know...

By justifying not titling or proving dogs in ANY way prior to breeding, isn't that taking the path of least resistance and following the same breeding philosophy that most here think got the ASL's where they are today? Hell, most here don't even considered them real GSD's;  they were real at one time (til breeders got too complacent and arrogant to test them in any way). They just knew their dogs could do "it" so why prove it even to themselves? See where it got them?

Susie,
Answering these question to me are a part of selecting yes. Do you agree that trainability is only one aspect in that selection? 

Hank 

 

That's not how ASL's got where they are.  They DO test their stock, just in different venues, and with a bit more emphasis on showing, TOO much forgiveness of weak character, and (in my opinion) very disillusioned ideas about conformation.  But, they DO get their health tests, AND they compete, and they have a following of their own.  And I would certainly suppose that the ASL handlers select their next champions from a background of champions, and not from someone considered disreputable who shuns the system.  They're probably having their own version of this conversation RIGHT NOW, ha ha.