Assessing Sporting Ability

[Sayreovi]

Typical response regarding the herding comment. GSDs were designed as multi-purpose dogs. The first GSD was born in 1899. The first Schuhtzhund trial was in 1901. The belief that they were primarily herding breeds is ignorance. I don't know why people continue to believe such an inconsistency, they're a utility dog. Max Von Stephanitz was one of the main people behind the push to use GSDs as protecton dogs.

Probably because he knew the breed was dying out being a herding only dog, and for it too remain the breed needed to evolve.

The below quote still gives the impression the GSD was formed as a herding dog but became a utility dog as an after thought. The word utility used before this change seems to be regarded the different kinds of herding required.

As Germany became increasingly industrialized and the pastoral era declined, von Stephanitz realized the breed might also decline. With the co-operation of police and working dog clubs a set of specific tests was developed in tracking, formal obedience, and protection work. This was the prototype of the present Schutzhund trials. He persuaded the authorities to utilize the German shepherd dog in various branches of government service. The dog served during the war as Red Cross dogs, messenger dogs, supply carriers, sentinel, tracking and guard dogs.

I can also Google

Ohh looky.....another bit of info from this "ignorant" person Still can't find anything saying the breed was originally developed as anthing other than a pastoral breed.

With the oncoming of the twentieth century, and having seen the SV develop into the largest single breed club in the world, Von Stephanitz was turning his attention to the long-term future. He was able to foresee that in a growing industrialized nation the role of the pastoral shepherd dog would decline and the breed must be able to adapt to other work if it were to continue as a functional animal.

It seemed that the very qualities that made the German Shepherd such an exceptional sheepdog could well be put to good use by government departments. This was the thinking of Von Stephanitz and this was to be his next campaign. As always, he achieved this and during World War I was seen as messenger dog, rescue dog, sentry dog, and personal guard dog.

Edited March 25, 2009 by tollersowned

[Alyosha]

Nattylou, I don't recognise the dog you've posted, where is he from? Love his neck feathering, you don't often see that these days.

I partis btw, my first girl is a parti so I am a fool for parti-colours. I'm a bit of a weirdo tho', I'll take what I love over what will win any day

Nice isn't he - you should see his son! He wasn't Australian.

He died in a hunting fall at the end of last year.

[Just Midol]

Typical response regarding the herding comment. GSDs were designed as multi-purpose dogs. The first GSD was born in 1899. The first Schuhtzhund trial was in 1901. The belief that they were primarily herding breeds is ignorance. I don't know why people continue to believe such an inconsistency, they're a utility dog. Max Von Stephanitz was one of the main people behind the push to use GSDs as protecton dogs.

Probably because he knew the breed was dying out being a herding only dog, and for it too remain the breed needed to evolve.

The below quote still gives the impression the GSD was formed as a herding dog but became a utility dog as an after thought. The word utility used before this change seems to be regarded the different kinds of herding required.

He believed it might decline 2 years after the first creation of the breed?

The breed always has been a utility dog. But I don't expect you to conceed that you were wrong.

You'll have to prevent a better argument than the one you did, WW1 was in 1914 and Schuhtzhund started in 1901. If they were only used for protection in 1914 then why was schuhtzhund created in 1901?

GSD Standard:

The German Shepherd Dog must be even tempered, well balanced (with strong nerves), self assured, totally at ease (except when provoked) and good natured, as well as attentive and easy to train. He must possess courage, combativity and toughness in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, service, herding dog and Schutzhund.

Standard specifically claims the dog is for companion, guard, service, herding & schutzhund. It doesn't say or anywhere, all of them.

Also, Max also originally said that the GSD should always be bred for working ability first, and appearance second. Appearance should never be sacraficed for working ability. He also stated that unless you're a working line breeder, then you're not a GSD breeder. If we care so much about standards then surely we'd care about the view of the man who created the standard?

Edited March 25, 2009 by Just Midol

[Just Midol]

The below quote still gives the impression the GSD was formed as a herding dog but became a utility dog as an after thought. The word utility used before this change seems to be regarded the different kinds of herding required.

Incorrect, the dog was formed FROM herding dogs AS a utility dog.

You've offered no logical reason as to why Schuhtzhund was started in 1901 if GSDs weren't used in such a fashion till 1914.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Just Midol

[Sayreovi]

The below quote still gives the impression the GSD was formed as a herding dog but became a utility dog as an after thought. The word utility used before this change seems to be regarded the different kinds of herding required.

Incorrect, the dog was formed FROM herding dogs AS a utility dog.

You've offered no logical reason as to why Schuhtzhund was started in 1901 if GSDs weren't used in such a fashion till 1914.

Probably because you haven't ask me to give a reason.

If everyone knows the breed was developed as a utility dog then why is the breed in Herding groups all around the world?

[Sayreovi]

He believed it might decline 2 years after the first creation of the breed?

The breed always has been a utility dog. But I don't expect you to conceed that you were wrong.

You'll have to prevent a better argument than the one you did, WW1 was in 1914 and Schuhtzhund started in 1901. If they were only used for protection in 1914 then why was schuhtzhund created in 1901?

--------------

Also, Max also originally said that the GSD should always be bred for working ability first, and appearance second. Appearance should never be sacraficed for working ability. He also stated that unless you're a working line breeder, then you're not a GSD breeder. If we care so much about standards then surely we'd care about the view of the man who created the standard?

I believe I quoted something that answers your first question and second question.

I don't expect you to conceed you are wrong either, I am not saying I am right, but nor am I saying you are until you can show me something that proves the breed was developed as a sevice dog first and not as a herding breed.

Who do you think I was giving his view points of?

The first Schutzhund trial was held in Germany in 1901 to emphasize the correct working temperament and ability in the German Shepherd breed. Originally, these dogs were herding dogs, but the industrialization of Germany encouraged breeders to promote the use of their dogs as police and military dogs. The Verein fur Deutsche Schaferhunde (SV), the parent club, became concerned that this would lead to careless breeding and undesirable traits such as mental instability, so it developed the Schutzhund test. Since then, many other countries and working dog organizations have also adopted Schutzhund as a sport and a test of working performance in dogs

Is this Schutzhund club also wrong and ignorant about their breed of choice and sports history?

Edited March 25, 2009 by tollersowned

[Just Midol]

The below quote still gives the impression the GSD was formed as a herding dog but became a utility dog as an after thought. The word utility used before this change seems to be regarded the different kinds of herding required.

Incorrect, the dog was formed FROM herding dogs AS a utility dog.

You've offered no logical reason as to why Schuhtzhund was started in 1901 if GSDs weren't used in such a fashion till 1914.

Probably because you haven't ask me to give a reason.

If everyone knows the breed was developed as a utility dog then why is the breed in Herding groups all around the world?

Give me a reason then.

If we want to discuss what groups it is in then you must also accept that the breed standard lists it as a protection dog and herding dog

I've said numerous times that the GSD was created FROM herding dogs. But it was bred as a utility dog, suitable for many purposes.

He believed it might decline 2 years after the first creation of the breed?

The breed always has been a utility dog. But I don't expect you to conceed that you were wrong.

You'll have to prevent a better argument than the one you did, WW1 was in 1914 and Schuhtzhund started in 1901. If they were only used for protection in 1914 then why was schuhtzhund created in 1901?

--------------

Also, Max also originally said that the GSD should always be bred for working ability first, and appearance second. Appearance should never be sacraficed for working ability. He also stated that unless you're a working line breeder, then you're not a GSD breeder. If we care so much about standards then surely we'd care about the view of the man who created the standard?

I believe I quoted something that answers your first question and second question.

I don't expect you to conceed you are wrong either, I am not saying I am right, but nor am I saying you are until you can show me something that proves the breed was developed as a sevice dog first and not as a herding breed.

Who do you think I was giving his view points of?

No, you've provided nothing that answers my first question. You also provided no reference for it.

Why would I say the dog was developed as a service dog? I've never made such a claim.

The first Schutzhund trial was held in Germany in 1901 to emphasize the correct working temperament and ability in the German Shepherd breed. Originally, these dogs were herding dogs, but the industrialization of Germany encouraged breeders to promote the use of their dogs as police and military dogs. The Verein fur Deutsche Schaferhunde (SV), the parent club, became concerned that this would lead to careless breeding and undesirable traits such as mental instability, so it developed the Schutzhund test. Since then, many other countries and working dog organizations have also adopted Schutzhund as a sport and a test of working performance in dogs

Is this Schutzhund club also wrong and ignorant about their breed of choice and sports history?

Reference.

It is important to note however, that I don't actually care what the breeds original working purpose was.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Just Midol

[Keshwar]

If you do not have a standard how do you recognise a breed as a specific breed?

Just wondering?

Have a look at this page:

http://stilhope.com/stilhopemain.htm

do you recognise a breed just by looking at the images? These dogs were not bred to any standard other than work & yet they are still recognisable as a specific breed. If you google sheepdog trial galleries, you will find hundreds of pages of Border Collies, one after another, none bred to breed standard, all bred to work standard. They may have different markings/colours/earsets, but are recognisable as the same breed often in appearance but mostly in what they do & how they do it.

So they are still bred to a standard!

[Diva]

I think it's easy for breeders of any animal to get swept away in their favourite aspect of that animal. Performance testing can be vital in preserving a breed in it's original state.

Personally I don't think type has to be sacrificed for function. My Borzoi might not hunt wolves, but they do pretty well after rabbits, hares and the occasional fox - as do many other top show winning Borzoi in Australia...

Yep, not that I have 'top show winning' Borzoi, but mine also can and do catch bunnies. In Russia of course they still do hunt tests for Borzoi, and some western Borzoi compete occassionally. Pretty sure that Jim Sillers (USA) took some of his show bred dogs over years ago and they held their own well in the field. I think, but am not entirely sure, that you still can't make up a full Champion of Breed in Russia without a hunting certificate. I hope they hold onto the hunting tradition.

[Sayreovi]

Give me a reason then.

If we want to discuss what groups it is in then you must also accept that the breed standard lists it as a protection dog and herding dog

I've said numerous times that the GSD was created FROM herding dogs. But it was bred as a utility dog, suitable for many purposes.

No, you've provided nothing that answers my first question. You also provided no reference for it.

Why would I say the dog was developed as a service dog? I've never made such a claim.

Your reason is below, something I've posted about a few times but you choose to ignore.

Yes it is listed as a herding and protection dog now, but was that listed in the original standard? If not when was that description included?

http://www.germanshepherds.com/thegsd/history/

The first Schutzhund trial was held in Germany in 1901 to emphasize the correct working temperament and ability in the German Shepherd breed. Originally, these dogs were herding dogs, but the industrialization of Germany encouraged breeders to promote the use of their dogs as police and military dogs. The Verein fur Deutsche Schaferhunde (SV), the parent club, became concerned that this would lead to careless breeding and undesirable traits such as mental instability, so it developed the Schutzhund test. Since then, many other countries and working dog organizations have also adopted Schutzhund as a sport and a test of working performance in dogs

Is this Schutzhund club also wrong and ignorant about their breed of choice and sports history?

Reference.

It is important to note however, that I don't actually care what the breeds original working purpose was.

http://www.midohioschutzhund.com/

You obviously do otherwise you wouldn't be responding too me about it at all.

I don't care enough myself too search more, but I found both of those links and plenty more supporting my statement rather than yours when searching GSD history.

ETA: Oops what do you know, another one.... http://www.germanshepherddog.com/schutzhund/trial.htm

Edited March 26, 2009 by tollersowned

[Alyosha]

+

Yep, not that I have 'top show winning' Borzoi, but mine also can and do catch bunnies. In Russia of course they still do hunt tests for Borzoi, and some western Borzoi compete occassionally. Pretty sure that Jim Sillers (USA) took some of his show bred dogs over years ago and they held their own well in the field. I think, but am not entirely sure, that you still can't make up a full Champion of Breed in Russia without a hunting certificate. I hope they hold onto the hunting tradition.

Come on - I saw you two at the Royal...

I think when a breed, whether dogs, horses etc, is a national or cultural icon then extra attention is paid to preservation. If a breed degenerates in it's native land then the breed in general can lose credibility.

Australia exports both arabian horses and arabian dromedary camels back to their countries of origin, where they are used to improve the native breeding stock. This places a certain amount of shadow over the presumed quality of their own stock does it not?

[Jed]

Criisovar,I did not state all breeders are clowns, but some certainly are!!!

Breed standards are only some of the picture.Not testing Dogs is very damaging.

Its a sorry sorry joke,nowdays when any Joe Bloggs can do an open book exam and become a breeder!!!!

Crissovar,Yes you have a better chance but due to some breeding practise's that chance has been reduced.

I object to some so called Breeders stating that if a Dog meets a standard, then he will 100% automatically carry out his original task.Remarks like that are misleading and false. Tony

I presume you are having a shot at me, so thanks.

If the dog meets the standard, he is more likely to be able to carry out his original task. Because the items in the standard DESCRIBE a dog which is bred to perform the function. The article you quote states that, and it is correct. And I agree with testihg but having the conformation to do the job, means the dog is more likely to do it than another.

If you chuck out the standard, and just breed dogs which can do the job, you will probably achieve what you are seeking to a degree, but if you do that, you cannot guarantee past the first generation. Lots of mongrel dogs can do all sorts of things - and do them well - but if you are seeking a dog to do xx, you will try heaps of mongrels before you find the ones who can do the job. at least if you buy a dog bred to do the job, you probably wont have as many lemons.

If there are no standards, you just take pot luck. At least with a standard, you can choose from a type which is more likely to do the job.

Thousands of horses are bred which resemble Might & Power, but they wouldn't do the job he did.

Same with dogs.

Don't rubbish something you don't understand. No one is making you buy a purebred dog, buy what you like.

The standard is there for those who want to use it - and don't fool yourself, good breeders are attempting to breed dogs which will actually work at whatever it is they are supposed to do. And some wont work, and some breeders sacrifice the working ability for show wins, but not all do.

There are heaps of gundogs from registered lines working well in the field - it's simply that they get no recognition, police dogs are known by their police name, not their registered name (and a lot are registered) same with customs dogs etc.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Jed

[Keshwar]

Criisovar,I did not state all breeders are clowns, but some certainly are!!!

Breed standards are only some of the picture.Not testing Dogs is very damaging.

Its a sorry sorry joke,nowdays when any Joe Bloggs can do an open book exam and become a breeder!!!!

Crissovar,Yes you have a better chance but due to some breeding practise's that chance has been reduced.

I object to some so called Breeders stating that if a Dog meets a standard, then he will 100% automatically carry out his original task.Remarks like that are misleading and false. Tony

I presume you are having a shot at me, so thanks.

If the dog meets the standard, he is more likely to be able to carry out his original task. Because the items in the standard DESCRIBE a dog which is bred to perform the function. The article you quote states that, and it is correct. And I agree with testihg but having the conformation to do the job, means the dog is more likely to do it than another.

If you chuck out the standard, and just breed dogs which can do the job, you will probably achieve what you are seeking to a degree, but if you do that, you cannot guarantee past the first generation. Lots of mongrel dogs can do all sorts of things - and do them well - but if you are seeking a dog to do xx, you will try heaps of mongrels before you find the ones who can do the job. at least if you buy a dog bred to do the job, you probably wont have as many lemons.

If there are no standards, you just take pot luck. At least with a standard, you can choose from a type which is more likely to do the job.

Thousands of horses are bred which resemble Might & Power, but they wouldn't do the job he did.

Same with dogs.

Don't rubbish something you don't understand. No one is making you buy a purebred dog, buy what you like.

The standard is there for those who want to use it - and don't fool yourself, good breeders are attempting to breed dogs which will actually work at whatever it is they are supposed to do. And some wont work, and some breeders sacrifice the working ability for show wins, but not all do.

There are heaps of gundogs from registered lines working well in the field - it's simply that they get no recognition, police dogs are known by their police name, not their registered name (and a lot are registered) same with customs dogs etc.

:rolleyes:

[jesomil]

If the dog has the right drives plus the right conformation he will be more likely to perform the function. Without the drives it doesnt matter what the dog looks like, he cant perform his function.

No one is suggesting throwing away what breeds typically look like but without correct drives, they will never be workers and workers have to be bred not just happened upon in a litter.

Alot of working lines are just as purebred as their show bred cousins. And I have never seen a member of my breed with anything other than excellent conformation. They cant do their job without it.

Many years ago I bred and showed a herding breed. There was great excitement when a pup out of a litter showed some instinct working sheep. It was filmed as well, just to show that instinct still exists in the breed.

Looking back, it makes me laugh that the small unusable amount of instinct that dog showed made us believe the dogs could still work. One pup out of about 30.

At least with a standard, you can choose from a type which is more likely to do the job

If you put a working line Kelpie next to a show line Kelpie I know which 99% of famers would choose. One is bred generation after generation on carefully selected traits to make it a great working dog, the other is bred generation after generation on their conformation.

Working kelpies have a conformation standard that is bred to and that is why they all look similar, it is just not the priority. You couldnt produce great workers if it was.

[jesomil]

I just read the Saluki article. It is very informative and raises very important points.

things you cannot see are more important than things you can. There are many things about Salukis that a judge can't see and can't feel, and functionally, those things are more important than the visible and palpable ones

[Jed]

And working line dogs also have a standard. And paddocks of properties where REAL working dogs are, are littered with the corpses of working line dogs which DIDN'T work.

And you might get 1 in 30 from show stock, but you don't get 100% from working stock either. Certainly a better ratio.

If you choose show dogs as breeders with working ability, whilst keeping to the standard, you would get a higher proportion of working dogs, but most show breeders tend not to do that.

I know a couple who do, and they confidently sell dogs which will work, whilst continuing to produce champions. It's simple, the ones who demonstrate no working ability, no matter how well conformed, are either shown, and not bred, or sold as pets, and only those pups which show solid working ability are used for breeding.

And there are many more in other breeds, I am sure.

[Vickie]

So they are still bred to a standard!

Of course they are, isn't that the point of this whole discussion?

[Vickie]

And paddocks of properties where REAL working dogs are, are littered with the corpses of working line dogs which DIDN'T work.

What a ridiculous statement. Not only is it inappropriately emotive, it is simply not factual.

How about this instead?

Just like show breeders, farmers keep only the best to go forward with.

A farmer breeds a litter in order to get 1 or 2 working dogs to replace current dogs. He picks what he thinks are the best at a very young age and has no use for the others & in some isloated areas no way or inclination to find homes for them. They are disposed of.

Some farmers believe that if a dog is not showing everything they want to see at 8-12 weeks, they are no good. Different lines mature & switch on at different ages, some farmers do not believe this and are not willing to waste their time on something that is not as good as others they have to choose from. They are disposed of.

Some farmers have no time to give 2nd chances, if a pup displays any undesirable traits related to work or not. The farmer cannot afford to take the chance & spend time training the pup if there is a possibility it is no good. They are disposed of.

Some pups show little or no work ability, for any number of reasons. There are plenty of talented rescue dogs around, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Do I condone disposing of dogs? of course not! but to say that every dog who dies on a farm does so because it did not have any ability is just not true.

We have a dog in our family, a working kelpie who spent the first few years of his life on a station. He is a good dog, very talented & served his master well His job ended when they moved off the station. He has been on a chain for the last 5 years. He is given food but that is about it. It may seem he is one of the lucky ones...to be kept alive. Honestly I wish he had become one of those corpses you talk about. It would have been much more humane than the life he is now forced to lead.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Vickie

[poodlefan]

Culling is an emotive issue and one I believe may be misunderstood by those outside the breeders,world.

Show or working, what tends to separate the great kennels from the rest as I understand it is the ruthlessness with which they cull from their lines any dog that does not meet a very high standard. I don't pretend to understand how difficult it must be to evaluate and remove any dog that is not contributing - either as a worker or as a breeding prospect but I respect that it must be done.

"Culling" does not have to mean death but in the middle of nowhere, the options for rehoming 'failed' working pups will be limited. I don't personally know any breeder that puts down culls but I don't move in wider breeding circles and especially not working ones.

From a limited understanding of the process it seems to me that some European countries cull their kennels much harder than we do and that as a result standards within a breed are more readily maintained. I am happy to be corrected on that.

Running several littermates on beyond maturity and retaining them for breeding even if you aren't thrilled with their quality, breeding them to see what they might produce or because they are there.. this would not happen in some kennels.

Some top breeders undertake an annual review of breeding dogs and remove from their breeding program any not making an active contribution to a kennel's future.

I make no judgement but do believe that those who breed only with the best they produce will probably produce better dogs over the longer term. Show or working, that shouldn't make a difference.

I do ponder the hypocricy with which we will lament the death of culled puppies but not bat an eyelid at the routine slaughter of animals for consumption. The only difference in the process is an emotional one as I see it. And I agree Vickie, there are worse fates than a humane death for a dog.

We pet owners who lucky enough not to have to make these decisions need to think carefully and walk in the shoes of the breeders before we judge IMO. To call for rigorous health testing and breeding only for the betterment of the breed means that hard decisions are going to have to be made about dogs that don't cut it.

I don't advocate that culled pups/dogs should be PTS but I'm reluctant to condemn what I don't fully understand.

[JulesP]

What is the actual demand for a 'working' dog?? I would rather see show breeders producing dogs that make nice pets as that is were the majority go to.