This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Two Moons on 29 June 2010 - 05:06
And it's found in the eyes of the breeder at the end of the debate.
Thats how it works.
by Gustav on 29 June 2010 - 12:06
Chris Hruby, you have written a very very good post.
Moons, at the end of the day I agree with you also.
There is no linear measurement that is going to measure breedworthiness. Its not any of the sports work, or policework, or show work , as a means exclusively. (Note how I said exclusively before somebody misinterprets that to mean that policework or sport work can't be an aid inassessing breedworthiness.) The reality is that there are police dogs that should not be bred, though they are wonderful at their job, there are dogs in sport at ALL levels that should not be bred, but are excellent competitors. OTOH, there are police/show/sport dogs that absolutely should be bred.
As Moons said, the real barometer of breedworthiness will be determined by the knowledge and experience of the breeder.( Ithink this is what you mean Moons). Their knowledge about the breed, the dogs, and the integrity of that breeders bar for what they are striving to produce. Oftentimes what makes a dog breedworthy is the appropriate dog for that dog to be bred to.
People who subscribe to a specific set of rules or tests that allow a dog to be breedworthy are missing the bigger picture that many many owners of these "top" dogs do not have a clue about breeding or genetics of their dogs and the subsequent breedings of that dog do not produce the consistency of the dog itself.
Its very similar to "great players do not lead to great teams" as well as the "MANAGEMENT" of great players(or sometimes lesser players) leads to great teams.
In the end Breedworthy has to be determined by the breeder, and the knowledgable/experienced breeders will use the right combinations to provide superior dogs based on this knowledge/experience regardless of any type of linear measurement.
PS Some of these great breeders "only" use dogs that have passed these linear tests as part of their program, but the important piece is the knowledge/experience because there are plenty of people breeding these highly qualified dogs in all venues that are not reproducing the same quality.
by charlie319 on 29 June 2010 - 14:06
IMPO, tittles are a good tool to reduce the uncertainties involved in breeding, and with some of the prices we see for top breeding litters, every hedge helps; but that is a far cry from saying that breeding tow WUSV competitors will guarantee a similarly accomplished litter. Even at that, many litters of top performers may include a pup or two that acts like it just left a Grateful Dead concert...
That is why it unsettles me to see breeders (more in SL, but increasingly in WL) adhere to formulaic breeding practices that only result in a narrower genetic selection within the breed. Like Steve Schuler mentioned, placing a WL sport-dog in a family companion role happens often, and IMO is a definite mismatch between temperament and drives versus environment... The usual consequence of which isthat the dog ends up being a "problem" and ends up in a shelter.
A proper breed stewardship program would not only look to breed "the best with the best", but also "the right best with the right best" and would look after the preservation of the diverse bloodlines and types within the breed. Ideally, every SchH, working dog club, and even kennel club should have a breed warden subscribed to the regional and national governing bodies (both for conformation and work), and hopefully the international parent organization, to identify and grade dogs on their desirability (not the same as a KKL) for breeding under several different criteria that would include the perpetuation and improvement of particular bloodlines in the country or hemishere. But that would be a bit utopic.
Like you, I believe in seeing the whole dog and not the "trait -du-jour" . Once again, I appologize if I came across in an untoward manner.
by Steve Schuler on 29 June 2010 - 15:06
I live in rural Oklahoma, not exactly the hub of all things 'Dog' Back in 1990 I clued into the USCA, I think while looking at "Dog World" magazine. Remember, this was before the internet and the onslaught of the information age so information was not so easily obtained. I became aware of the S.V. and the general scheme of the system of accreditation required to qualify a dog for breeding. "Good Deal!", I thought, and still do. I imagine there are many reasons and considerations as to why that type of a system has only gained limited traction in the American GSD scene, another topic, I'm sure. Honestly, I actually envy people who have access to a Schutzhund Club, and to think that somebody might be within an hours drive of a dozen different clubs... Wow, How Cool! By my reckoning I'm about 3 to 5 hours drive from 3 or 4 clubs. Heck, I'd be delighted to have convenient access to any type of group training venue. The point of expressing this is that I have tremendous respect and appreciation for the people who do have access to these sorts of endeavors and who actually pursue whatever training goals that they are able to. I don't think I ever have, or ever will, dismiss a handler and dog's acheivements at whatever level or in whatever venue.
It is not uncommon to see breeders who use dogs without accreditation, or dubious accreditation, in their breeding programs. This extends to considerations including hip evaluations, using OFA prelims as adequate to warrant hip certification for example. I would regard this as less of an affront to acceptable breeding practices if the prices they asked for their pups made them accessible to people who simply cannot afford to spend $1000.00 or more on a pup (Like Me!). Problem is, too often that is not the case. I guess we find ourselves considering two well used maxims, "Whatever the market will bear..." and "Caveat Emptor".
I'm not sure just how this relates to the topic at hand, maybe something like, "The economics of breedworthiness". I guess I'm just venting a little....
SteveO
By the way, I have turned down three people in the past who asked me about using one or the other of my males for breeding. I didn't enquire into the breedworthiness of their females, I knew my dogs were not. End of Story.
by Gustav on 29 June 2010 - 16:06
I believe every dog should be x-rayed after a year of age to assess the hips. I also get the marketing promotional value of the OFA stamp. But to imply this is the only way to have responsible knowledge of your breeding stock is to wait to 2 years of age to assess them is a crok!! And for those of you who do believe this, stay away from the European dogs regardless of whether you re-xray them or not.
This is just my opinion about the "facts" of hip assessment. Not trying to convert anyone, but reading hip radiographs are not this magical science, that can only be done at two years of age and only OFA.JMO
We must be vigilant against hips and hip assessment is very important to this endeavor, but a hip prelim in the hands of knowledgable breeders will be sufficient, and an OFA excellent in the hands of a person breeding two dogs without the knowledge of the other important aspects often produces disaters.JMO
by Steve Schuler on 29 June 2010 - 17:06
Points well made.
I spoke before I thought (never good!) pertaining to OFA prelims, my apologies. It is something that I've seen in conjunction with some other less than optimal credentials, sometimes. But still I spoke wrongly.
Sita's Mom recently posted a thread that linked to a pretty good series of articles dealing with the problem of hip dysplasia.
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/399655.html
One of the considerations brought up in those articles is the desirability of not only considering the hip evaluation of an individual dog, but to look into family histories. Easier said than done, although the articles go into that problem, and more, in some detail.
Good reading for anyone, I think, and certainly pertinent to breedworthiness.
SteveO
by Gustav on 29 June 2010 - 17:06
by Two Moons on 29 June 2010 - 18:06
a breeder who is working his dogs and has had his animals for more than just a couple of generations knows his animals and the line he is working with.
When you consider that there are breeders who have made this their life's work and know exactly what they produce without depending on an x-ray.
There was a time when the work over time weeded out the faults, (before x-rays and a vet on every corner).
There are more reasons to disqualify an animal from breeding than there are for approval.
HD is only one, there are many more equally if not more important faults to consider.
In my opinion too much importance is placed on titles alone.
Work is the key, show me the dog in it's own element doing what it was bred to do.
Let me see it's nature and abilities then we can look at the paper work and x-rays.
Show me an old dog still active and vibrant along side it's descendants.
In my opinion most breeders today are in too big of a hurry for obvious reasons.
Time is the second key to knowing what you have produced and if it's correct.
I have great respect for those who have put years of hard work into their dogs to be the best, not just the most prolific.
And by best I mean the whole picture, not just a bite routine or sit and stay.
Always look back at the original requirements of the breed and the standards, hard to do in todays world but still just as important as it was then.
Confirmation ribbons and titles are only as good as the judge who awarded them.
Knowing your dogs, is priceless.
by charlie319 on 29 June 2010 - 20:06
by Steve Schuler on 29 June 2010 - 20:06
Again, I am not a breeder and I do not pretend to have the knowledge and experience to even begin to build a competent breeding program.
Anyone who is even minimally knowledgeable or familiar with the breed has got to recognize that there are many risks involved in breeding German Shepherds and very few clear-cut choices. My hat is off to those who are really making their most honest and sincere effort to perpetuate and improve the breed. You know who you are. Thanks!
SteveO
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
