SharpShep

Oh really? Interesting, It says on the FCI website that they both are associate members, but perhaps it is out of date. Did the AnKC tell you they weren't members? On the bright side, that clears the way for a FCI associated body for working dog breeders in Australia. I'm grateful for Erny getting involved even though she has no shepherd. The more AnKC members complaining to the AnKC about their policies, the more likely they will listen. I agree totally Staranais, another body independant with FCI membership is the best solution.

I will write the letter - thanks for your encouragement . But I'm not understanding something. What Sharpshep wrote above .... .... makes sense to me. Perhaps me being a bit naive . But if I am, it's because I obviously don't understand the GSDCA's workings well enough. Are you able and willing to explain why Sharpshep's suggestion is laughable? I would also like to know why my suggestion is laughable too I know that a few years ago, Schutzhund Australia sent a proposal of assistance to to the GSDCA's AGM to provide the means to title their dogs, and the proposal was never tabled for the members to vote upon. What they did, was take a vote upon maintaining the same anti-Schutzhund policy of non involvement and the members were not informed by the GSDCA'a executive that Schutzhund Australia had presented a proposal to be voted upon. The GSDCA then told Schutzhund Australia that their proposal was rejected by the membership

What I do know is that the GSDCA doesn't operate under SV rule, that I am 101% correct. I don't find it funny that they don't, I find it extremely sad that not many appear to have the motivation to fix the problem in the best interests of producing GSD's compliant with world standards which could be achieved if they wanted to. Taps, I am not personally projecting my own hair brain scheem, what I have projected is the operation of the German SV to represent how things are "supposed" to be done and the fact that we operate to the contrary. Given that I can't get an answer as to how the breed's correctness is maintained leaving out half of the quality control testing that the SV determines mandatory, leaves me disolusioned as to the GSDCA's ability to maintain the functionality, integrity and traits of a working breed.

You can change it Taps easily. All it takes is the GSD club members to grab the SV book stand up and move a motion that we operate under SV rule. Each state GSD organisation goes to the GSDCA with same motion and the GSDCA has no option other than to comply. So what is preventing that from happening which I could only conclude is the motivation of self interest and not the interest of the breeds future integrity???.

Well said wednesday. This thread is turning into a GSDCA bashing episode. We all need to get back on track and concentrate our efforts into something constructive, with regard to the original topic. Sharpshep and others, have you actually done anything positive about letting those that matter know your feelings on this subject? Getting on forums and bitching to each other is not what we need to rectify this situation. The GSDCA is the cause of the whole Schutzhund debarkle by choosing not to play by the rules in the first place and adopting anit-Schutzhund policies contrary to the requirements to run off on their own tangents. What hope is there when the major association who should have been well and truly operating in compliance with the SV by now doesn't support work testing and titling their dogs. If all the breeding GSD's in the country were titled as they should be amounting to hundreds of dogs instead of a handful of imports and Schutzhund training was mainstream, there wouldn't be the issue presented today. It would be well and truly established that Schutzhund trained dogs are not dangerous and would have never come under the spotlight being just part and parcel of breeding particular working dogs.

Not true. This legislation concerns dogs in Victoria only, so it was dealt with by the GSDCV, not the GSDCA. The GSDCV's original proposal to the DPI was to have Sch titled dogs made exempt from the entire requirements of the Dangerous Dog legislation. They asked for this, because they do not believe that Sch titled dogs are dangerous. Unfortunately, the DPI would not recognise their request and would only grant them a partial exemption. Thus we ended up with what we have now. The GSDCA had previously come under notice by the SV to explain why they didn't conduct themselves under SV rule regarding working titles and lied to the SV claiming that Schutzhund was illegal in Australia long before the Victorian law was implemented. I know that Allison Kollenberg from Schutzhund Australia had the paperwork to confirm this situation was the truth. The GSDCA/V whatever, was then believed to have been the primary instigator to have the Victorian law implemented but in effect shot themselves in the foot with the titled imported dogs apparantly???. Ultimately, we know the GSD clubs stance on Schutzhund which is no secret, we know they don't conduct themselves in accordance with the SV and FCI requirements in the best interests of the breed. Looking at the big picture in the history of GSD breedings in Australia, apart from the breed surveyed imported dogs, there has only been "ONE" dog that I am aware of produced in Australia that achieved WUSV compliance and recognition was Nordenstamm Chiller. The production of only one compliant dog in the scheem of things IMHO leaves some substantial room for improvement of the present system.

We have had one for four years and are a great door. The only problem we have had is that the flaps last about two years and crack at the top and the plastic tabs where the flap attaches break off but were easily reinforced with pieces of tin plate. We have a couple of GSD's belting through the door at full speed often, so the door certainly gets a work out at our place Not too concerned with intruders climbing through unless they want to meet this on the other side :D

To be honest, a puppy like that IMHO is destined to be a major handfull and is not worth the effort that could be put into a puppy of sound temperament. I don't have any experience in Malamute traits, but a GSD puppy displaying that behaviour I would return it to the breeder???

That's fine for their interests to be showing the GSD, but first they need to prove what they are showing is a GSD of authentic traits, not a dog that only looks like a GSD. They have an obligation to the breed taking on the role that GSDCA does to promote and ensure the correct breeding practices to result in the most authentic dogs they can produce in their entirety, not just one part of the breed which I might add being a show dog isn't a requirement of the breed standards. Protection is part of the breed standards for the GSD, so how does the GSDCA ensure that the dogs they rubber stamp are capable of that???.

These days they call it "idiopathic aggression" At least some study results refute the idea of "cocker rage". I quote. Just because an owner doesn't understand why a dog becomes aggressive doesn't mean there ain't a reason. That's still not a positive thing for Breeders, Dominance doesn't neccessarily = Aggression. A true Dominant dog does not need to show aggression. It's still poor breeding - breeding dogs who are insecure dominants to react in such a manner. We already know that shyness is inheritated - i.e. as seen in BC's. People need to start being accountable that genetics does come into it sometimes. Yes, so do bad owners but it's not all about bad owners, sometimes bad dogs are bred and sometimes so much so that you create an average temperament/problem i.e. as seen in certain health issues in breeds. Different studies will say different things and it depends on the controls of the studies, I read about Cocker Rage from Dr Temple Grandin when she talks about simple trait breeding and experiences with it - sometimes us non-scientists think we know better, I'm not sure why - perhaps to protect out right to own and breed dogs? Sorry, but when people stop making excuses and blaming owners for everything some good might actually be done. I'm not for BSL but sometimes I think we create it by sounding the way we do by saying it's all the Owners fault. Defence aggression driven by fear is the most unpredictable aggression I have experienced. Dominance aggression I think is very predictable when handling a dog like that, you know exactly how the dog will react in particular situations where the dog needs to be handled accordingly. Genetics plays a major part in a dog's natural traits, but where the handler/owner is at fault, is not training and handling the dog appropriately to behave in a desired manner.

My mum always had 3 dogs of the same breed for years in a 2 dog maximum council and just recently I asked her how did she used to get the 3rd dog approved. I guess she was a bit naughty, but she never had her 3rd registered. She said they all looked pretty much the same and most people didn't realise she actually had 3 dogs and never presented an issue or was ever officially questioned about how many she had. Not that she was right in her judgement or that I agree with what she used to do, but she maintained that providing the dogs were looked after properly, didn't cause a nuisence like excessive barking etc to raise unwanted attention no one really cares about it???. She had done this for over 20 years and I kind of wondered if she was just fortunate to get away with it, or if an excess of dogs is something people become concerned over like dobbing you in or making enquiries if you have the required approvals???. I have some friends who register a 3rd dog at another address...........one was questioned over a barking incident where the ranger found 3 dogs where my friend's husband said the 3rd was his brother's dog he was looking after for a couple of weeks. The ranger just said "oh ok" and asked him to keep the barking down and wasn't a big deal apparantly???. I guess it depends on the council, but I wondered how vigilant the rangers are generally chasing up people with too many or perhaps unregistered dogs???.

That's old ground..... been there and done that with that particular issue but the fact that the GSDCV did this proves that there were no blast of trumpets or hoop la bands...just decisive action on their part. Would the other breed clubs if they had adopted the same tactic in seeking the exemption from desexing and the wearing of muzzles and fluoro collars at VCA sanctioned events, made sure that it was inclusive to all breeds involved with SchH /IPO? Doubt it. I don't approve of what occurred last year either but it's water under the bridge and the GSDCV cannot be held accountable for the inaction of the other Breed Clubs. The fact that you may not be aware of what your Breed Club is doing with regard to the removal of all SchH /IPO titles from registered Pedigrees is a communication problem within your own Breed Club and not the GSDCA. Why didn't the GSDCA intervene with the Victorian dangerous dog laws in regard to Schutzhund titles dogs given that they have the majority membership base who own titled dogs to prove they are not dangerous. The GSDCA was in the box seat to argue against the legislation and make a stand that a titled dog is no community threat???. All they did was work at providing an exemption for titled dogs to be shown without a muzzle and collar requirements in the show ring. In effect, they agreed with the government stance that titled dogs are dangerous which they know damn well is a blatent unthruth.

In Europe, all other working breeds must have Schutzhund titles to be shown, bred and for their pedigrees to be officially registered the same as the GSD........is that correct Tapferhund???. What are the breeds essentially, Dobes, Rotties, Belgian Shepherds etc.............I thought that some of these primarily had KNPV titles as their recognised working platform but I may be wrong on that aspect???. I am not actually telling anyone anything, I am asking how the GSDCA can determine breed quality without Schutzhund testing..........can anyone answer my question or do we just accept the fact that the GSDCA are not interested at aiming their breeding structure to comply with world standards???. If the GSDCA are happy to maintain low level reproductions and promote a system that allows dogs that don't have the required traits to pass through their quality control net and be reproduced is their call which I don't have a problem with, but restricting people who do have higher aims to maintain and improve the traits of an authentic GSD which we all benefit from in the long run, is a very narrow minded approach IMHO The GSDCA are in the best position having the FCI and SV behind them to slap the breeding requirements on the ANKC's table and say "hey"!!!, these are the SV requirements and testing regimes for the maintanence of our breed's integrity approved and recognised by the FCI..........that's how it has to be done and Schutzhund is part of that requirement for people and groups who wish to follow that route???. So what is stopping the GSDCA from doing that I ask???.

Unlike many other Breed Clubs we have a National Council, the German Shepherd Council of Australia which speaks and acts on behalf of all its State Affiliates. The GSDCA has and is dealing with the matter in hand. The GSDCA is not known for blowing its trumpet or having bands precede any action it does. It is a quiet achiever even though its members may be very vocal. At least the GSDCA has taken positive steps to address this issue re the removal of SchH /IPO titles from Imports from the moment it was notified. There has been a screaming silence from some of the other breeds affected by the removal of SchH/IPO titles from the pedigrees of their Imports. Perhaps in their case such overseas titles were not key factors in proving breed worthiness. Schutzhund testing was designed as a breed integrity test specifically for the GSD as far as I am aware. I didn't think other breeds actually adopted Schutzhund testing as a breeding requirement and which I guess doesn't provide the necessity in maintaining title recognition in other breeds as it does with the GSD???. Does anyone for interest know if other breeds use the Schutzhund test as a mandatory testing factor for breed integrity other than the GSD???

What I would like to know, is how the GSDCA can determine that Schutzhund training isn't necessary when the SV uses Schutzhund training as quality control test to maintain breed integrity and doesn't recognise untitled GSD's for showing or breeding???. Wouldn't the SV who is the GSD world foundary registery who dictates the breed policy to the FCI have dropped Schutzhund training also if what the GSDCA is saying is in the best interests of the breed???. Even the SV breed survey has a character assessment (bitework) to prove that a titled dog is actually up to the required standard...........but in their wisdom and what wisdom I ask compared with the experience collected by the SV, can a local body (GSDCA) make such a stance and claim that without Schutzhund training and testing they can still magically determine the quality and traits of an authentic GSD when the world controlling body who have administered the GSD breeding requirements from day one, say that breed integrity cannot be maintained without Schutzhund testing???. What does the GSDCA know about the breed that the SV doesn't know, which is the part from my perspective that doesn't make sense???. Our GSD's don't even qualify to enter an SV event untitled and without passing an SV breed survey to compare them in showing to rate our productions at world level to guage where we are at???. I don't understand how the GSDCA can hold their heads up in pride as they do maintaining they are all for the breed's future when they leave half the quality control tests out of the equation which the SV claim is essential and mandatory to maintain correctness of traits???.

Interesting. So as far as we know the ANKC "should" abide by FCI regulations regarding IPO/schutzhund titles & not altering pedigrees. So I guess the question is, do the FCI have the balls to stop the ANKC doing this, or will they just turn a blind eye & let the ANKC get away with it? I haven't read every post as yet, but I am wondering if anyone knows if this situation has been officially reported to the FCI for them to comment???

Prong and E collars are commonly used world wide, it's not like they are a new device like a steel capped boot that has popped up on the Aussie market for a dog training aversive that needs evaluating with the knee jerk reactions that seemed to have happened. In reality, I see these tools being purchased under greater instruction than the simple flat collar and leash and the remote chance of people using these to an abusive level unconsciously I think is too slim to use as the agenda to ban them. At least professional trainers should be able to use them freely where required I think.

Did you miss the bit about "not given to indiscriminate friendships?" The point is, that if I DARE to suggest that it is unnecessary for our dogs to be stand-offish, I get shouted down by those quoting the breed standard! Hi Sue, If you are referring to Rottwieller's, they are a working dog of a guardian breed and the stand offish one's are probably the one's with the most authenticity and alliance with the breed standards. Without sounding patronising, why have a guardian breed then complain because it has the genetics to do it's job???. A dog of a guardian breed that hasn't the genetics for that job, isn't a correct example of the breed although it may be more socially preferred, the dog is actually a dud. Aloofness isn't aggression and hostility, it's the dog not trusting the stranger at that point with the sharpness to react if the meeting turned pear shape. A seemingly friendly stranger may be someone who intends to grab your handbag and an aloof dog will be ready for any misadventure. Aloofness and sharpness is a great basic trait for a dog to successfully be trained in protection where your Rotties, GSD's, Belgian Malinios, Dobie's excel in that working role. People who buy guardian breeds should be prepared for the likelyhood of protective genetics surfacing and learn how to handle and train them for acceptable social behaviour. I don't think that people should try and breed out protective genetics from these breeds without impeccable knowledge of what they need to achieve when playing with nerve strength and hardness which can backfire to create unpredictable fear aggression being the make up of some truly dangerous dogs. Plenty of other breeds who are licky monsters and everyone's friend to chose from

Agree with geo - NO to both! Me too, no to both and nice post Geo

?? I don't think anyone on this forum necessarily advocates banning any training tools, although I could be wrong because if they were I doubt they'd be game to publicly say it! But I think you would find that broom sticks used on dogs, kicking with steel-capped boots and hitting a dog hard enough to injure them would all be considered illegal. It is illegal to injure animals unnecessarily. Although there are always grey areas. If I saw someone hitting a dog with a broomstick you can bet I would report them and I would expect them to be facing animal cruelty convictions. My concern is the misuse of dedicated training tools resulting in cruelty to dogs. I do not think said training tools should be banned, but I do think if we can minimise their capacity to cause harm we should do that. We will never be able to prevent cruelty by banning things that can be used in a cruel manner. However, if we are making purpose-built dog training tools with the capacity to do harm then I think we need to be extremely careful how those get distributed and used. I think we have a responsibility to dogs to protect them from the misuse of such tools where we can. Hi Corvus, I did have the impression that some laws were already in place to restict sale and use of especially E collars and prong collars, either you could buy them but not use them or vice versa, something to that effect on the basis that these tools have the potential for misuse and abuse. I totally understand the concept of this, but people who are heavy handed or cruel with dogs will use other means if they can't use an E collar on high stim or a prong collar to cause the dog pain, they will use a piece of heater hose and smack the dog on the nose instead............so what is gained from targeting and banning tools that can potentially cause abuse when the heavy handlers will use something else to cause an aversive instead???. In the big picture, does legislating against certain training tools spare that given dog from suffering abuse??? The agenda doesn't really address the elimination of dog dog abuse, it only adresses that abuse will not be commited with a particular tool where it's confusing to me as to the effectiveness of such an agenda or what the agenda is really about???.

This is my first post guy's so please don't slip into me as I am not posting to annoy anyone, but after reading this thread with interest there is something I feel needs to be said. I agree that aversive training tools like E collars, prong collars, choker chains and head halters etc have the potential to harm a dog if misused, so the idea is to ban some of them. But the most aversive tools I have seen used on dogs like pieces of broom stick, rolled up newspapers, car heater hose, a boot in the backside with steel capped boots and a traditional bunch of fives which are tools and actions used to train dogs into submission of a highly abusive nature available to any yobbo who wants to mistreat their dog. What I don't understand is how the banning of tools primarily targeted towards professional trainers is helpful to the dog's abused with a lump of broom stick on a daily basis, or should broom sticks, local papers and car heater hose be banned too I can't get my head around the constant targeting and banning of properly designed training tools that offer an aversive stimulus, while the hard core aversives that do harm dogs dramatically are put in the out of sight out of mind basket. I hope someone can see where I am coming from in my slightly twisted thought process