# Approaching a SchH dog?



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

I was just a visitor at our local club and I was wondering about something. It appeared to me that many of the people there were reluctant at best about me meeting their dogs. Note that I was alone and did not have my dog with me as he was in a crate in the van. 

And also, these dogs were not working at the time nor had they been recently in the training ring.

What I would like to know is - is this the norm among SchH trained dogs nowadays? Are their owners reluctant to have strangers approach them while the dogs are with their owners? 

It was almost like many of the owners were afraid that their dogs were not trustworthy around strangers (me!).

That is not the attitude that I saw a number of years ago when I was training my then current dog in SchH and certainly not one that I expected.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

When I went to the club that we will start training at in the morning (too excited to sleep) it was not a training day, but there were a few members there training and playing with their dogs.

They were very welcoming and even though I had Stark and he barked at a couple (doofus!) they came over and introduced themselves and their dogs.

One dog was very aloof and could of cared less that I was there, but the owner still came over with him. The other dogs were happy to meet a stranger and it seemed like the owners were very happy to meet me and to introduce (and brag) about their dogs.


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

I was in schH for 6 years and if someone asks to pet my I'd say sure go ahead.  Especially with Isa she absolutely loves people, especially kids. 

Most pepople though in schH are in it to train and not to interact with other dogs of course that's not every club but some clubs or more serious then others.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I agree with Missy. At every club I've been to, the dogs are there to train, not really interact with people as the handler should be the focus. 
But...after an ob or protection session and the dog has been put back up in the crate, a pottybreak time would be fine if someone came up to see your dog, but 1st time visitors may be different, just because they may not know your dog manners skill(not you particularly codmaster, just in general).
I don't see it as people being afraid of a dog at all, it is respecting the handler and dog to not approach.
Dog/dog interaction is never done where I've been. Now and then the pups have gotten together for short time(this is the really young ones) but thats it.
If you went to look at a particular dog or bloodline, then it would be different, you talk to the owner, usually they would be more than happy to have you meet their dog.
There have been very few dogs anywhere I go that are not people friendly-in fact I can only think of one that we were warned to stay away from, it was one of the TD's dog.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

too late to edit, this is a clarification on this sentence:
_I don't see it as people being afraid of a dog at all, it is respecting the handler and dog to not approach._
should have said people being afraid of their dogs reaction, if they know their dog, they should know whether or not they are human/stranger reactive.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

The hesitation from some of the handlers to allow others to approach and intereact with their dog may have nothing to do with the dog's temperament, but everything with the handler's training philosophy and end-goals for their dogs. 

In our club, there are some dogs that are better admired from a distance . . . 

There are some very reliable and friendly dogs, but the end-goal of the trainer is raising a pup for police service, or professional security dog, so dogs are raised to ignore other people other than the handler - 

There are handlers who do not want their dogs socializing or intereacting with others as a training/management style (though the dogs are perfectly fine), no negative reflection on the dogs or the trainers, just a choice in how THEY raise their dogs.

And then there are people like me, who have the biggest sucks in the world, and are allowed to jump and maul all strangers withs kisses and ear nibbles. (so strangers, be warned!)


----------



## tintallie (Aug 6, 2008)

I think a lot of the time the handler wants to be the sole focus of their dog and doesn't want something to break their focus. Miya is still young and seeing something exciting like our friend with his two dogs or some pigeons/rabbits means she's not focused on me. When training Miya with our trainer Sandy, she brings her GSD Addie along sometimes for as a demonstration dog and I don't pet Addie because I don't want to distract her. If she comes to me, I offer her a sniff and wait and see, but I never initiate.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

When dogs breaks from the handler and approach us at the club(during obedience or whatever) we just ignore the dog or turn away so the focus _does _go back to the handler.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Castlemaid said:


> There are some very reliable and friendly dogs, but the end-goal of the trainer is raising a pup for police service, or professional security dog, so dogs are raised to ignore other people other than the handler -


When was the last time someone training for K9 service work took their dog to a _schutzhund_ club? Unless you mean to just practice around distractions? Or that your club duel trains? Otherwise that's just silly. 

If the dogs have just come off from doing bitework, then no, I wouldn't expect the handler to let you pet their dog. Even a dog with great nerves and who is very friendly can get over stimulated doing bitework.

But before/after practice OB work, or before loading the dogs? I don't see why not. Then again, some people just don't like strangers messing with their dogs, even if said dog _is_ friendly. That's a personal preference, and should be respected. 

The first day I brought Mulder to club, they seemed happy to give him pets/treats. I never asked to pet anyone else's dog, as my general rule for "stranger" dogs is hands-off until I know them better, regardless of what people say. I did, however, get o play with a puppy that was there for socialization :wub:


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

Agree with everyone else. 

Our club is pretty smushy on the dogs...but NOT when they are working. And the reality of it is, if they are out of the car they are usually working on SOMETHING. Even if it's just learning to be calm or in the environment. VERY rarely is it because the dog is not friendly with people. Of course there are one or two that I've known but I wouldn't say it's the norm. In fact more often handlers don't want you petting the dog because it's too friendly. Many people I know use the place as an association for the dog. We are here to work, not to play or be social and since it was never allowed, it's never a concern that the dog will think that's what he's there to do. 

Also, I know personally that my dogs amp up at the training field, especially the young ones, and manners kind of go out the window. They wlll jump on people and can shamelessly maul for attention. I don't mind that, in fact I allow them that freedom. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. However, I understand that some people don't care for it so I won't force my dog on anyone. I am always a little nervous when someone new wants to pet my dog in that environment. Are they friendly? Absolutely. But so many first timers are used to more mild mannered pets and are bothered or overwhelmed by my in your face, bowl you over, "poorly trained" dogs.  In fairness they look pretty poorly trained until we're actually working.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

atravis said:


> When was the last time someone training for K9 service work took their dog to a _schutzhund_ club? Unless you mean to just practice around distractions? Or that your club duel trains? Otherwise that's just silly.


I've trained at a couple of places where police k9's train in the sport. The dogs are already on the force and it is a way for the handler and dog to have time doing what they enjoy when not working.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

onyx'girl said:


> I've trained at a couple of places where police k9's train in the sport. The dogs are already on the force and it is a way for the handler and dog to have time doing what they enjoy when not working.


Yes, but that's not what was said. Castlemaid said _puppies_ being raised for the work. Every K9 I've known was trained in a private facility, in which these classes are NOT open to the general public, and can actually accommodate the extensive training these dogs require.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Every club is different and where Lucia lives the facilities may not be available, so the combination Police/SchH club is utilized. 
The club I was last affiliated with TD is a LEO K9 trainer and many of the members were K9 handlers/breeders/trainers.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

True, but it should not be defaultly assumed that every SchH club duel trains in K9/personal protection work.

I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say _most_ do not.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I was giving examples of my club, I was not insinuating anything about _most_ clubs, as it was rightly pointed out, I don't know how most other clubs would work. 

At our club, our main helper, works, on his own time, in keeping the RCMP dogs' training current. The RCMP dog handlers in our town go to him to work out issues in tracking/training/on-the-job obedience.

He is currently raising a breeding prospect puppy for: German Shepherd Breeder | Police Dogs | Schutzhund | Washington USA | BC Canada
Puppy program (he is listed on the site - and was raising another pup for the puppy program, but decided to keep it. This young bitch that he has will be Sch titled and returned to Suzanne for her breeding program. The young dog is being worked on the bite-suite too. 

I think, that in the future, if I'm down to one dog, I may be interested in doing the same (raising a puppy for Suzanne's puppy program, if I make the cut). 

Another dog that he owns is being readied for Schutzhund titles and for private security patrol. Our helper owns a security company providing security personel to commercial enterprises. His previous dogs have many hours of security patrol work on them, and have chased away some-real-life bad guys in real-life situations. 

I will let him know that he is being silly, (or am I being silly? LOL, for sure, I enjoy being silly, it makes life fun).

But because one has not seen clubs where dogs and members are not involved in real-life law enforcement, it is only _silly_ to assume that NO clubs would have such dogs or members training for such goals.

And I think it is sad if people feel that Schutzhund has nothing to do with raising and training patrol dogs - the training is there for the evaluation of the dog's potential, and the skills trained are the foundation training of many a great working dog.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Castlemaid said:


> And I think it is sad if people feel that Schutzhund has nothing to do with raising and training patrol dogs - the training is there for the evaluation of the dog's potential, and the skills trained are the foundation training of many a great working dog.



What's sad is that this is largely no longer true.

I offered up in my first post the question if this was a duel training facility. Clearly it is, so there you have it. 

But as for TRAINING K9s (and others of such ilk), NO. They do not go to strictly SchH clubs to "evaluate" their dogs. I know personal protection people who be insulted by the very notion. 

At some time in the past perhaps, but then is not now. MOST clubs are not equipped to deal with these dogs even if the HELPERS are. There is a difference between a HELPER and a CLUB.

Would you honestly let a K9 trained dog run the field around other, lesser experienced "bystanders" as a casual SchH club would? Do most even have the equipment and resources necessary? And I'm not talking muzzles and bite suits. I'm talking water obstacles, cars, fences, WALLS (not jumps). Do they do serious civil agitation on the field around the other members?

"Club" insinuates members. "Members" to a club insinuate a range of experience. Not everyone who goes to a club is extremely experienced. Would you let your department's extremely expensive investment be put into a situation where he is surround by inexperienced handlers and dogs? Where one mistake could potentially mean a HUGE loss to the department? 

I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I must be living in an alternate reality.

The clubs I have gone to that didn't have some police K9 dog participation are the exception, not the rule.

Been around a lot of law enforcement dogs at the clubs. Many of them supplied and assisted in training by the club trainers. Some of them dual train for schutzhund competition. Some come for assistance in skills or to find an additional place to keep dog skills going;or they are members of both communities.

I love it when the squad car pulls in all lights and sirens onto the field.

Will be sure to tell all these importers, trainers and officers that they are out of line. One very successful dual purpose canine lived my home prior to training for law enforcement. He went to schutzhund for his initial work. Really nice dog, but it did take a person who was a dog handler first and police officer second to handle him. The police handlers are not always as well versed in dog as we might like to think.

Increased risk at schutzhund club? Dogs who generally are out and about in the regular population during their work?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

atravis said:


> What's sad is that this is largely no longer true.
> 
> I offered up in my first post the question if this was a duel training facility. Clearly it is, so there you have it.
> 
> ...


 
*Maybe I am misinterpreting your message (and hope that I am!) but aren't police K9 and even PP dogs supposed to be safe to bring around even the general public - why wouldn't you feel comfortable bringing them to a "club". Aren't these dogs supposed to be completly trustworthy among strangers? *


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

A dog in training is a lot different than a dog on the field. In training, mistakes happen, and for a K9 a "mistake" can be devastating. To the point of actually ending his career.

And its not just the people who are at risk here.

Let me recount to you a personal experience. 
There is a man who lives locally with a Presa Canario. This dog is massive, with civil out the @$$, and is EXTREMELY (I repeat, *EXTREMELY*) dog aggressive. God only knows why, but he trains at one of the local clubs (thankfully not mine). They refuse to let him do protection work, for the simple fear that this dog would probably _kill_ the sorry sap catching him Let alone any dog that came within 10 feet of him.

Would I want my extremely valuable police K9 near something like this? HECK no. ONE wrong move and that dog could disembowel another dog, _easy_. Shoot, the sticky little man that handles him scares me almost as much as the dog... if he doesn't get pulled down with that dog, then I'm counting down the days til his prong breaks and that dog goes on a rampage. 

And I'm speaking not from the Schutzhund perspective here. Again, I've never know a K9/PPD or other of such ilk receiving their formal training in a SchH club. Not a one. There certainly aren't any training at our club. I recall one time our helper even commenting on K9s not being appropriate for the field.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

atravis said:


> A dog in training is a lot different than a dog on the field. In training, mistakes happen, and for a K9 a "mistake" can be devastating. To the point of actually ending his career.
> 
> *When you say "mistake" do you mean the K9 biting a person at the club? or are you referrring to another dog attacking your dog?*
> 
> ...


And more to the point, would you allow other people (not even dogs, just people) to approach and pet your dogs if you went to a club with them? Or are they trustworthy enough around the public to allow this? That was my original question - and i would expect a higher level of trustworthiness of a police dog or PPD than I would expect of an average SchH trained dog as they must often function in the public.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Here, let me show you an example of a "mistake":

?? ?????-?????? :: ????????

That dog, Vyatkin's Glock, is training in security work. He is NOT a sport dog. He did what protection dogs do... he switched to the weapon hand. And someone suffered for it. Good protection/security dog, bad sport dog. 

All? I don't know. At the one I'm going to, a woman was bring a similar dog (very DA, nervy, tried to go after a bystander during training), though her's was a GSD. The club eventually told her they would no longer work her dog, and I've not seen her since. I certainly wouldn't want to pet that dog, and I DARN sure wouldn't let Mulder anywhere near them.

Could people pet MY dog? Yes, absolutely. Is he trustworthy in public? Again, yes.
But there always going to be bad mixed in with the good. What I've posed, is that if this "bad" is worth the risk to an otherwise VERY important dog (IE, a K9).


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

atravis said:


> Here, let me show you an example of a "mistake":
> 
> ?? ?????-?????? :: ????????
> 
> ...


*Just so you know, I think that most owners would feel their dogs are also "very important", not just a K9! I know that my dog certainly is as important as ANY K9!*
*And I would check the club operations of anyplace where I would be training also!*


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Darn... the website is Russian, maybe it isn't supported by all browsers. 

Its an interesting video, though. Surely there would be people to call this dog "nervy" or trash... where in reality, this dog is very good at what he does. Its the handlers there that sucked... but that's a whole 'nother matter.

*I would hope that anyone training dogs that bite would know the difference between a sleeve hunting Schh and a K9 who may bite them anywhere!*

One would hope, wouldn't they!? But there in lies where SchH is counterproductive to most REAL protection work. You don't want the dog thinking it can target any one specific area. You want the dog to take what it can get, where it can get it. You also don't necessarily want the dog gripping the target in one possition throughout the attack, which is what SchH (nearly all sports, really) teach. 

Also, I don't want it to sound like any dog who is not a K9 is "worthless"... however, they do represent a considerable investment to both the agency employing them, and often the public they are meant to serve. Washing out a K9 means washing out an animal that will potential be saving lives on the street.


----------



## Cain (Apr 8, 2010)

"And I think it is sad if people feel that Schutzhund has nothing to do with raising and training patrol dogs - the training is there for the evaluation of the dog's potential, and the skills trained are the foundation training of many a great working dog."

First time posting on this forum, so bear with me if I screw things up - 

Schutzhund, back in Stephanitz' day WAS about assessing a dog's capability, but that has long since died. Schutzhund and K9 or PPD have little to do with each other these days - even down to the personality/character of the dogs. Sport dogs are mega drivey - K9/PPD dogs not so much so; what they have instead is a much, much greater amount of fight drive, which is NOT a good trait for a sport dog. A K9 or PPD can possibly be crossed trained to do sport - but very few Schutzhund dogs can work as a K9/PPD dog. Even if the K9/PPD dog is crossed trained in sport you run significant risk of this happening (atravis' link):

?? ?????-?????? :: ????????

So - in today's world, a sport dog & a K9/PPD are entirely different - there is no longer the melding of the two, as Stephanitz intended.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Well, I must have been to some nicely "managed" clubs where dangerous dogs and behavior do not abound. Certainly the "valuable" K9s are sent into very dangerous situations all the time, but they aren't at the schutzhund fields. I haven't seen our department value these dogs any more than I value mine. If going to a club was a risk to a officer's dog, it would be risk to any dog there and everyone should probably stay home.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Samba said:


> Well, I must have been to some nicely "managed" clubs where dangerous dogs and behavior do not abound. Certainly the "valuable" K9s are sent into very dangerous situations all the time, but they aren't at the schutzhund fields. I haven't seen our department value these dogs any more than I value mine. If going to a club was a risk to a officer's dog, it would be risk to any dog there and everyone should probably stay home.


Well said!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Are you telling me that dog that bit that rather oddly presenting helper is a police dog?? I would bet my bottom dollar it is not. It could be, but that would not be the cause of the issue there!

I guess there are sporty dogs out there, sure. But, many of the people I have trained with still own and train serious dogs in schutzhund. Often, the dogs that they have for "sport" have more power, aggression and civil nature than the police dogs at training. 

Course, I live in an alternate reality, I forgot.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Thanks for comin' Cain!

To further the point, the training a K9/PPD dog needs is DIFFERENT than what a Schutzhund dog _gets_. 

So to say a true patrol dog just joins a club and titles, and is then ready for work on the streets, is _completely_ false. 

Last time I checked, jumping through car windows and attacking a driver weren't included in Sch. training... but maybe I just haven't been at it long enough? :shrug:

A dog may be training on a Sch. field, with a Sch. helper... but if what they are doing is not included in the parameters of what schuzhund is, then they are NOT doing schutzhund. Diving in the water after a decoy in full suit is NOT schutzhund, regardless of who the helper is.


----------



## Cain (Apr 8, 2010)

Samba said:


> Are you telling me that dog that bit that rather oddly presenting helper is a police dog?? I would bet my bottom dollar it is not. It could be, but that would not be the cause of the issue there!
> 
> I guess there are sporty dogs out there, sure. But, many of the people I have trained with still own and train serious dogs in schutzhund. Often, the dogs that they have for "sport" have more power, aggression and civil nature than the police dogs at training.
> 
> Course, I live in an alternate reality, I forgot.


Actually, that is a PPD - a "personal protection dog" who, no doubt, could work as a K9 - and that dog is doing EXACTLY what he should do. The problem lies with the decoy - who by the way, is a SUPERB decoy as far as Eastern block folk go - I've seen him on multiple vids catching DDR/Czech dogs - and with the handler, who forgot to call the dog out. The decoy is a "sport" decoy - and, because of that, he neglected to recall that PPD/K9 dogs will switch to whatever hand is holding the weapon, unlike Schutzhund (or really any other dog sport dog), will let go, bite, let go, bite - EXACTLY as should be done in a 'real life' situation.

A good "sport" dog should NOT have huge amounts of civil/aggression/fight drive - because that seriously ups the ante for someone on the field to get hurt. Good PPD/K9 dogs should NOT have huge amounts of prey drive, and foam at the mouth at the site of a ball. 

No one is dissing dogs used in sport, or in any way saying PPD/K9 dogs are superior - however, it is like comparing apples & oranges - just about the only similarity is that they are both fruit. 

Let us know how that alternate reality is going for ya.....


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Welcome, Cain, maybe you could introduce yourself!
To atravis:


atravis said:


> So to say a true patrol dog just joins a club and titles, and is then ready for work on the streets, is _completely_ false.


Who said that?
Some dogs do have it, I wouldn't discount it just because that is what you've seen at your club.
Posting up a video doesn't make it so everywhere...


----------



## Cain (Apr 8, 2010)

"Some dogs do have it all, I wouldn't discount it just because that is what you've seen at your club.
Posting up a video doesn't make it so everywhere..."

I'm not sure who you are responding to? If it's me, then I'll be happy to clarify - if not, I'll butt out. )


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Cain said:


> "Some dogs do have it all, I wouldn't discount it just because that is what you've seen at your club.
> Posting up a video doesn't make it so everywhere..."
> 
> I'm not sure who you are responding to? If it's me, then I'll be happy to clarify - if not, I'll butt out. )


It was to atravis.... I just wanted to welcome you!


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

atravis said:


> To further the point, the training a K9/PPD dog needs is DIFFERENT than what a Schutzhund dog _gets_.


Agreed!! The end goal and the training style brought to the RCMP dogs, and the work the helper does with me and my dog are very different. 



> So to say a true patrol dog just joins a club and titles, and is then ready for work on the streets, is _completely_ false.


Who said that? The female that our helper is raising will not be trained for street work, but will be titled and returned for breeding. What I was saying is that a large part of the foundation work for Schutzhund dogs and a working K9 is very similar. 



> A dog may be training on a Sch. field, with a Sch. helper... but if what they are doing is not included in the parameters of what schuzhund is, then they are NOT doing schutzhund.


Agreed. The RCMP members who come out to the club to work their dogs are not doing Schutzhund. But a newbie visiting for the first time may not know this, and may wonder why the handler does not want his/her dog to interact with strangers. 

And I guess I have never experienced any "real" Schutzhund clubs then, as Lex describes them. I've never seen those things happen here (dogs going savagely crazy at the sight of water containers and running into the crowd to maul innocent bystanders . . . ? ) 

I trust the club members and others to control their dogs and keep me and others safe when we train, and as club members we know how to not put ouselves into the path of potential danger when other dogs are on the field. 

But perhaps I'm in an alternate reality too, hope to see Samba there someday!


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

First, how common do you honestly think those dogs are Jane?
Sure, there are great ones out there that can do it... but that's just it, they are the GREAT ones. 

Very few dogs these days are "great". Good yes, but great... very few.

Lucia, I'm not saying these dogs are running into the crowds and mauling people. But a dog doing civil agitation work (which NEEDS to be trained in a K9s/ect) should not be done in a club invironment (IMHO, anyway). Note the videos Jane posted... notice anyone else around 'cept for the handler/decoy? The cameraman I guess... but he seems to be standing at a good distance


----------



## Cain (Apr 8, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> Welcome, Cain, maybe you could introduce yourself!
> 
> 
> Ohhh, so now you're asking me to be polite??  Well, let me see what this old PPD/K9 trainer can do......
> ...


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Cain said:


> What would you like to know? Oh, the lady with the black DDR dog  is the one who recommended the forum - thanks, Lex!


Lol, always a pleasure!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

My dog will bite your arm for real if you stick it out there first. Is he a bad sport dog?


----------



## SchHGSD (Dec 20, 2001)

I don't let visitors pet my dogs. They are 100% social, but I don't know you, and my dog is not there for socialization and play time with some visitor. He is there to work, with me.

Last visitor I let pet a dog, leaned over into his face, grabbed his cheeks, lifted him OFF the ground and kissed his muzzle. No thanks, if you want to smooch dogs, go to a dog park.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I see that a police worthy dog can do sport and have flashy obedience and get scores even in a ScH III situation. Whew, I thought my reality was not real for a moment.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

SchHGSD said:


> I don't let visitors pet my dogs. They are 100% social, but I don't know you, and my dog is not there for socialization and play time with some visitor. He is there to work, with me.
> 
> Last visitor I let pet a dog, leaned over into his face, grabbed his cheeks, lifted him OFF the ground and kissed his muzzle. No thanks, if you want to smooch dogs, go to a dog park.


I wouldn't let kids and/or other people approach my dog either if I weren't sure of his reaction. I see an awful lot of supposedly well trained Schh dogs that owners will not let strangers approach them, even friendly ones.

OTOH, I once met, at a dog show, the dog who went high scoring dog in protection at the German Seiger show and not only could I pet him and he was approachable and even friendly! My wife even took him for a walk around the show around all kinds of people and other GSD's. THAT is my idea of a well trained SchH trained dog. An outstanding representative of the breed!


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I titled a dog in Sch in the 70's and I titled a dog in Sch in 2000. I also breed, raise, train, and place dogs with Police depts currently. Have placed over 8 dogs in past ten years with PD's. The training of Sch in the 70's more closely approximated the training of policed dogs today because of training goals, methodology, and type of dogs bred. In the seventies there were not dogs that were over the top prey monsters or dogs that were like the current showline dogs in general. This is a recent evolution of the past thirty five years for sport and show. Too much specialization,IMO, and this is what I saw and participated in over the years not hearsay or book reading. Most sch dogs today would not be good police candidates(some, but a very few and that's why many depts. look to get green dogs for their academies instead of Sch dogs.) Sch training has become prey training with trainers working pretty much in prey, with many of the tougher elements of Sch from the seventies removed,(such as 6 foot straight wall, padded stick hits, prey bites rewarded in points over fight drive bites,etc), but these things were the things bred for back in the day and easily converted to a police dog. Today's sch is a sport, a police dog is a vocation, just like professional wrestling is a choreographed sport and professional boxing is a vocation.JMO


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Oh, I see the problem, I trained with OLD people! They know a dog from a dog and training from training. A few still draw breath!


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Samba said:


> Oh, I see the problem, I trained with OLD people! They know a dog from a dog and training from training. A *few* still draw breath!



DING DING DING!
Keyword :laugh:


----------



## Cain (Apr 8, 2010)

cliffson1 said:


> I titled a dog in Sch in the 70's and I titled a dog in Sch in 2000. I also breed, raise, train, and place dogs with Police depts currently. Have placed over 8 dogs in past ten years with PD's. The training of Sch in the 70's more closely approximated the training of policed dogs today because of training goals, methodology, and type of dogs bred. In the seventies there were not dogs that were over the top prey monsters or dogs that were like the current showline dogs in general. This is a recent evolution of the past thirty five years for sport and show. Too much specialization,IMO, and this is what I saw and participated in over the years not hearsay or book reading. Most sch dogs today would not be good police candidates(some, but a very few and that's why many depts. look to get green dogs for their academies instead of Sch dogs.) Sch training has become prey training with trainers working pretty much in prey, with many of the tougher elements of Sch from the seventies removed,(such as 6 foot straight wall, padded stick hits, prey bites rewarded in points over fight drive bites,etc), but these things were the things bred for back in the day and easily converted to a police dog. Today's sch is a sport, a police dog is a vocation, just like professional wrestling is a choreographed sport and professional boxing is a vocation.JMO



EXACTLY!  The same applies to the West German dogs of that time & the West Germans today - far, far different animal to work. In the late '80s I had a Bueseker Schlob dog - big, dark sable, and built like a GSD should be built - and I saw him on several blood bites (took a guy off a fence that was sneaking into the yard, etc), was good with kids, the whole package - and structurally sound, to boot - today's Seiger dogs are far different animals in all areas.


----------



## SchHGSD (Dec 20, 2001)

codmaster said:


> I wouldn't let kids and/or other people approach my dog either if I weren't sure of his reaction. I see an awful lot of supposedly well trained Schh dogs that owners will not let strangers approach them, even friendly ones.


Oh I'm 100% sure of my dogs reaction- they would be fine. But I still don't want strangers petting them, why should I?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

SchHGSD said:


> Oh I'm 100% sure of my dogs reaction- they would be fine. But I still don't want strangers petting them, why should I?


Oh, I don't know. Maybe to help others understand that there still are nice friendly GSD's in the world in spite of what they have been told or that they believe.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

cliffson1 said:


> I titled a dog in Sch in the 70's and I titled a dog in Sch in 2000. I also breed, raise, train, and place dogs with Police depts currently. Have placed over 8 dogs in past ten years with PD's. The training of Sch in the 70's more closely approximated the training of policed dogs today because of training goals, methodology, and type of dogs bred. In the seventies there were not dogs that were over the top prey monsters or dogs that were like the current showline dogs in general. This is a recent evolution of the past thirty five years for sport and show. Too much specialization,IMO, and this is what I saw and participated in over the years not hearsay or book reading. Most sch dogs today would not be good police candidates(some, but a very few and that's why many depts. look to get green dogs for their academies instead of Sch dogs.) Sch training has become prey training with trainers working pretty much in prey, with many of the tougher elements of Sch from the seventies removed,(such as 6 foot straight wall, padded stick hits, prey bites rewarded in points over fight drive bites,etc), but these things were the things bred for back in the day and easily converted to a police dog. Today's sch is a sport, a police dog is a vocation, just like professional wrestling is a choreographed sport and professional boxing is a vocation.JMO


There has always been a very real and obvious distinction between a SchH trained dog and a actual working police dog. I trained in Schh in the mid 70's in Brooklyn NY
and can still recall what the head trainer told us about this very subject - he trained SchH dogs to bite the sleeve and only the sleeve, while he trained police dogs to bite any **** piece of "the perp" (he was a cop) that he could reach. He also trained police dogs to keep biting until told to stop/pulled off while Schh were trained to stop when the decoy stopped struggling. VERY BIG differences - he said that there were extremely few dogs that he would even try to train in both - most could not really keep the difeerence straight. Although his own dog - a HUGE Great Dane could.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

codmaster said:


> I was just a visitor at our local club and I was wondering about something. It appeared to me that many of the people there were reluctant at best about me meeting their dogs. Note that I was alone and did not have my dog with me as he was in a crate in the van.
> 
> And also, these dogs were not working at the time nor had they been recently in the training ring.
> 
> ...


For me, the issue is that Bison is TOO friendly. He needs to clearly understand that time to work is time to work and not to socialize, especially while we are still working on focus and dealing with distractions. My club members know this about him and respect that. If they want to greet him they do it when he is in his crate in the car. 

As he gets more experienced, I don't expect this to be an issue.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Ruthie - I have the same problem with my Baron. Seems like he thinks most people are his friend (other than the few that he does bark at who usually are the wierd dressed or wierd acting ones) Heh! Heh! I tell myself better that than shy or too sharp or suspicious.


----------



## SchHGSD (Dec 20, 2001)

codmaster said:


> Oh, I don't know. Maybe to help others understand that there still are nice friendly GSD's in the world in spite of what they have been told or that they believe.


But, they came to my TRAINING. _My time to work with my dog._ From crate to field, it's a choreographed dance of getting focus, drive, and everything else right where we need it, until we step through that gate. 

If I was in public, walking my dog, or in petsmart, I could see your point.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

About petting dogs... schutzhund or not. I just have never been very attracted to petting other people's dogs. I wonder what that is in us that so many people want to pet some one else's animal? With German Shepherds, I get a lot fewer requests for such activity.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

SchHGSD said:


> But, they came to my TRAINING. _My time to work with my dog._ From crate to field, it's a choreographed dance of getting focus, drive, and everything else right where we need it, until we step through that gate. If I was in public, walking my dog, or in petsmart, I could see your point.


I wasn't refering ONLY while the dog is being trained or waiting to be trained(although that would pose a great distraction to work through!) - actually more so in public or in the house for example.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I was also a military police trainer in the early seventies, and all of our patrol dogs would release on command instantly. These were military police dogs and they outed just like Sch dogs....??? The difference in today's dogs and yesterday's dogs were mentality of many people. In the seventies you didn't walk up to German Shepherds you didn't know and expect them to wag their tail like a Golden. ....And people didn't expect their GS to respond like that. This is also a result of people wanting to change the nature of the dog from working to pet. Not in all cases but enough so that the dog has lost its respect in the working world to a large degree....sad!!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I have a female you really probably don't need to walk up to and pet. She is not afraid of you, but she really does not relish your company. The dog is my dog and she feels her loyalty and her "job" strongly in my presence. 

She is a complete mush within her pack. Kids can run up and surprise her with a hug... they are kids. But, believe me, she in no way would enjoy your touch. Why do you want to pet her?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Samba said:


> I have a female you really probably don't need to walk up to and pet. She is not afraid of you, but she really does not relish your company. The dog is my dog and she feels her loyalty and her "job" strongly in my presence.
> She is a complete mush within her pack. Kids can run up and surprise her with a hug... they are kids. But, believe me, she in no way would enjoy your touch. Why do you want to pet her?


*I really don't "need" to pet your dog (or any dog for that matter, other than my own). *

*And I am sure that you do realize the GSD USA standard says a GSD should be aloof but approachable. *

*That is what I am looking for and expect that we should all be striving for - a dog who may not welcome or seek attention from strangers but who is trustworthy enough and mentally sound enough to tolerate it well.*

*When you mention kids and her pack - are you referring to only kids in her pack? Or stranger kids? If the latter, how old would these kids be as a maximum to be treated as kids and not adults?*

*My dog seems to define kids as up to about 12-15 or so. He seems to treat this age differently than true adults - with a lot less suspicion.*


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

cliffson1 said:


> ........ In the seventies you didn't walk up to German Shepherds you didn't know and expect them to wag their tail like a Golden. ....And people didn't expect their GS to respond like that........This is also a result of people wanting to change the nature of the dog from working to pet. Not in all cases but enough so that the dog has lost its respect in the working world to a large degree....sad!!


Not necessarily the case in the 70's either. I had GSD's starting in 1972 and expected my dog to be friendly with people and yet also protective and smart enough to figure out when she needed to protect. The rest of the time she was a pussycat - friendly with kids and puppies and even kittens. And yes she was a dog that I trained in SchH as well.


I suspect that the majority of GSD's then and now are exactly that - pets!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I was referring to any kids. It has happened many times. 

No worries. If you want to check her teeth or look at her ears. If you desire to rub her belly or scritch her butt... whatever smooches or smooshies someone might desire to do to a dog that is not their own, she will do all of it without giving you concern. That is if she knows that is what I want. She will do all of that for me very happily.

Do not be fooled that you can next go get her yourself and perform such frivolities. She probably won't harm you, but she will convince you that it is in your best interest not to mess with her or her own without permission. She probably won't allow you to ruffle her kitty without permission either.

She is a pet. GSDs have been excellent companion animals all along their history, even when they "'worked".


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

What the majority of dogs are and what dogs were bred to do should be separate issues unless the dog was bred to be a pet!!!Also, the majority of these pets today couldn't pass a Sch test and that's why many don't attempt or attempt and don't finish. My only point is that my point of reference in dealing with the type of dogs of the seventies and now is in a capacity of what the dog was bred to do. From that standpoint you can see the differences in the dog today and also the difference in Sch today. As for pets, everybody is an expert on pets, but people breeding for the maintenance of the integrity of the breed have to know the difference. There are whole segments of German Shepherds today that are bred with incorrect temperament by the standard. They are not aloof, they are not courageous, they will not stand up to doing the rigorous work the breed was created for, and they are very seldom seen in the workforce anymore. People should not breed for this type of dog...which is one of the reasons that Sch was created so we wouldn't end up with this type of dog. And before anyone gets offended and personal, this is not a statement of judgement, but a statement of fact for a vast amount of breeders. There are many people who breed good GS today that still represent the ideals and performance that this dog was created for. There are few GS that can become police dogs today from the pet world or the sch world(few being relative to amount of GS there are in total), and any police training agency including the military and Germans acknowledge this. Yet, we see dogs used for work in these typical GS areas more than ever.....it starts with breeders understanding what the dog should be in all aspects and not just those that make good pets...afterall this is a working dog by creation that can also be a good pet. Many breeder have the priorities backward, JMO.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

One last thing before I wear my welcome out to some, EVERY dog in Germany , Belgium, Holland, Czech Republic, etc, that is papered and bred is a SCH dog. These same dogs that you see at luncheonettes, playing with frisbees, during agility, etc over in Europe are Sch dogs. So in these countries in essence there is no differentiation in Sch GS and any other GS unless we are talking about unpapered dogs that can't be bred to produce papered dogs. Something to think about.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

cliffson1 said:


> What the majority of dogs are and what dogs were bred to do should be separate issues unless the dog was bred to be a pet!!!Also, the majority of these pets today couldn't pass a Sch test and that's why many don't attempt or attempt and don't finish. My only point is that my point of reference in dealing with the type of dogs of the seventies and now is in a capacity of what the dog was bred to do. From that standpoint you can see the differences in the dog today and also the difference in Sch today. As for pets, everybody is an expert on pets, but people breeding for the maintenance of the integrity of the breed have to know the difference. There are whole segments of German Shepherds today that are bred with incorrect temperament by the standard. They are not aloof, they are not courageous, they will not stand up to doing the rigorous work the breed was created for, and they are very seldom seen in the workforce anymore. People should not breed for this type of dog...which is one of the reasons that Sch was created so we wouldn't end up with this type of dog. And before anyone gets offended and personal, this is not a statement of judgement, but a statement of fact for a vast amount of breeders. There are many people who breed good GS today that still represent the ideals and performance that this dog was created for. There are few GS that can become police dogs today from the pet world or the sch world(few being relative to amount of GS there are in total), and any police training agency including the military and Germans acknowledge this. Yet, we see dogs used for work in these typical GS areas more than ever.....it starts with breeders understanding what the dog should be in all aspects and not just those that make good pets...afterall this is a working dog by creation that can also be a good pet. Many breeder have the priorities backward, JMO.


You are correct in that many GSD's today do not have anywhere close to the temperament described in the GSD standard. Absolutely true.

OTOH, I have seen a number of dogs with Schh titles that are terrible looking specimens of the breed standard from a conformation view. Do you think that any of these dogs should be bred? I do not feel that they should be. Breeders have the most difficult job of baklancing all of the requirements of the GSD when deciding which dogs will help improve the breed and should be used for breeding.

If conformation is not an equal partner in the breeding decision, pretty soon we will have a dog who is also not a GSD.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> *And I am sure that you do realize the GSD USA standard says a GSD should be aloof but approachable*


Uh huh, aloof but approachable. Does approachable include petting the dog? I don't think so. 
Also, you have to consider that people at SchH clubs have dogs at different places in training and in maturity. I have young dogs that I do not want to expose to novices. The majority of the people I meet at clubs and in the general public are very, VERY un-natural in the way they behave around dogs. Their body language and behavior can many times spark suspicion in a GSD. For me, it is better for my young dogs to avoid these types and only expose them to people who are are comfortable and un-afraid. When I want someone to bring aggression out in my dogs, it will be the helper, not someone doing it by accident. 

As far as the differences in the dogs nowadays. I have written volumes about that but I think mostly, the dogs now are more of the "watch dog" variety where the dogs years ago were protective of the handler with some real intent behind that aggression.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

One more comment. There are still dogs today that possess the traits i just mentioned. Unfortunately, they are so mis-understood, ( yes, by SchH trainers ), they are being selected out of the gene pool. If more people would spend a little time really learning about GSDs by spending time working and training them vs just reading about them, perhaps things would start to shift. That's too much work I think and would cut into people's computer time.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Just wanted to let everyone know, in case you were worrried , that I came home unharmed from our Schutzhund training yesterday, even though we were all standing on the field watching an RCMP Patrol Dog take down the helper who had a hidden sleeve. 
We all cheered on the dog and had a great time.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Never mind about you, Lucia... is the dog okay?!? 

My girl has relatives in the RCMP, she's says to say "hello"!

As far as working line conformation, one just has to find breeders who consider conformation in their decisions. I think that there are a lot of well built working line dogs out there. More than a few V rate in conformation and many SG, I see.

The German Shepherd should have an unending desire to protect its pack and its territory, even in the face of harm to himself. There must be in the dog the ability to trigger this and fight has to come into play. Perhaps a breed who has these qualities is not for the general pet owning populace. I can get a pet anywhere... a German Shepherd, not so much.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

Never mind about you or the dog, is the handler ok? Does he need to have his head checked? Guess they really do things differently in Canada :rolleyes2:

One dog (or a few dogs) is not the greater representation of the whole. 
Just as you said that the example I posted "doesn't make it so everywhere", the same applies in reverse.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

I'd also like to say on the note of what GSDs "should" be.

First and foremost, before any one specific character trait, the GSD SHOULD be a versatile dog. A utilitarian, capable of any job its owner wishes of it.

Last I checked, _schutzhund_ isn't the only function these dogs preform. Nor is K9 work, or personal protection, or protection of any kind in general. Should those dogs retain those traits if needed? Yes. Should they be as pronounced as everyone seems to think they should be in ALL dogs off ALL lines ALL the time?

Last time I checked, a seeing eye dog didn't need to have outragious prey, or pronounced fight drive to be good at his work. He doesn't necessarily have to be aloof. Nor does a tracking, therapy, or herding dog. I think Stephanitz would be FAR more disappointed in the over-the-top, no off-switch, "extreme" dogs of today, far more than he would be of the dogs who do their jobs well and who are a bit more social.

There IS room for variability in these dogs, and while I don't agree with eliminating any one trait completely from a line, also don't see the need to breed the exact same degree of each trait into each line.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Last time I checked, a seeing eye dog didn't need to have outragious prey, or pronounced fight drive to be good at his work


Maybe not but the protective instinct, which would include fight drive, should be present, even if it is never used. I have placed dogs as companions and later on their owners brought the dog out to training. To say they were surprised when their dog took on the bad guy...no not someone running around like a chicken, ...was an understatement. They had no idea their dog was capable of that because the dog had never been placed in that situation. It was in the dog though, as it should be.

I can agree with the too much prey aspect and dogs that are extreme. However, you also have to consider what drive is being promoted the most. In SchH now we have handlers working their young pups from day one doing nothing but promoting the prey drive by endlessly playing with tugs and balls on strings. Most are completely overdoing that aspect and then later on, they end up fighting with what they created. The dogs are encouraged to possess objects and to fight with their owners over them. They were trained to do that mostly and this same behavior starts to show up elsewere in the training .

You have to be aware of how much of any one drive you bring out more than the rest because once it is out of the bag, you will not be stuffing it back in. This, IMO, is part of the reason we see so much prey drive in the dogs and what people are labeling as extreme. Yes, the dogs are different now but the people are manipulating the drives in a way that is sometimes making it look worse then it may be .


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

And I agree with you.
However, I think ultimately loosing drives of one form or another is inevitable, as this breed's versatility is what is ultimately its undoing.

If people can breed out most of the fight/defensive drive in a dog so that its good at competitive OB and SchH, they will. And that's the problem. They'll still be good at whatever it is they're doing... be it to the greater detriment of the breed or not. Why breed for it if you don't need it?

And I'm not saying that's right or wrong. Personally, I think eliminated any trait _completely_ is wrong, as I've said. But at the same time, if you want the dog to do what you want without those drives, then its only natural that they will be lost.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Actually, I think you do need the traits you just listed as not necessary to do well in obedience and SchH. They "are" necessary. The people who try to work with the dogs that don't have those traits know what I am saying. It is harder to work a GSD when one of the components is missing. You will always be kind of stuck in one area of the training when that is the case or you will constantly be trying to come up with solutions to what the dog is doing or not doing. You can maybe start to look for reasons or excuses for these deficiencies until you work a dog who has it "all". There is no better reminder than that about how important the whole enchilada is. This is when the training is just EASY and all you really have to do as a handler is stay sufficiently out of the way so the dog can do what his genetics are telling him to do.

To add to what I said in the previous post, the big problem,( which has always been present in SchH) , is the inability of the people to wait for their dog to mature. They try to get more out of the dog than he can give at that age. Used to be we saw too many people trying to bring aggression out of dogs that were simply way to young to respond. They had not developed the aggression yet but the people kept trying to get it out of the dog. I predict this is going to start to be the problem once again as the powers that be try to shift back to the way things used to be a bit more. If you try to get all that you want to work with out of an immature dog, you will pay for that later in the training after the dog matures. With maturity comes more drive, more aggression etc. These people training their pups to fight with them might really have a problem on their hands when that same dog is three years old. Then control starts to be the big issue. Patience IS really a virtue when it comes to training dogs but patience in dog training means more than just being that way during a five minute training session. It means being willing to wait for the dog to be ready for what you want to work with. Too much drive is too much drive. There is a perfect level of drive that you should try to bring out in your dog. When you achieve that and the dog has the those drives genetically in the right balance, the training is easy.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Whether or not people approach my dog has nothing to do with SchH or not and more to do with that dog's temperament, how I feel about the person, and whether or not it's time to socialize. I don't like people approaching my dogs (or cats, or my house...or anything!) without asking first. Most people that have the sense to ask happen to also be the people that know HOW to approach and interact with a dog appropriately. My SchH dog happens to be my most stable and social dog. If there is a group of people standing around, he will stay with me, not run around to everyone looking for interaction like my mutt, but he is very social in the sense that he is accepting of people, touching, little kids, you name it. We often take a short walk to a church yard to track or do obedience and usually get stopped by a group of girls who love to pet him and love on him. I made an effort to socialize him with people and kids so I trust him and he seems to enjoy the interaction. A few weeks ago my friend came over with her kids and they helped take the dogs for a walk and throw Nikon's ball.

If I do not allow people to approach, it is either because there's something I don't like about that person or because we are working/training and it's not the time for socialization and distraction.

At SchH training we try to keep socialization to a minimum. If we want to do that, we come early or stay late. If there's a new litter I will go early and play with them before we start. If there's a new member with a puppy often someone meets them early to visit and try on collars and toys. Sometimes puppies will come out while we are eating a snack between obedience and protection or something like that. Once we are done and people are slowly leaving, I might take my dog back out and have him leashed while I mingle. When we are taking turns working or helping out, we do not touch the dogs.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

The best dog that I ever saw with the right twmperament balance between protection and friendly was not even a GSD, I am sorry to say. it was a Great Dane and it was the personal dog of the chief trainer of the club I went to in NYC. He also trained police dogs for the city as well as SchH.
This dog was a ferocious protection dog with all of the fire and courage one could ever want on the field or in real life on the street. BUT one word from his owner and he could start playing with a bunch of children 10 seconds after his protection work.Most unusual and certainly not something I would expect of any dog.

But a great example of a truly remarkable temperament in a dog!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I like that dog at the Nationals doing protection work WITH a child. It was fun to see. Those are some ambassadors!

When my dog guards my stuff, my friends think she is ferocious and that she "doesn't like them". Just turn off the guarding situation and she will play ball with the person on the spot. They are like.."oh, I guess she does like me". Well, its not exactly like that to a dog.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I wholeheartily agree that the German Shepherd should be first and foremost an utility dog. I kinda of thought that people would remember back to the seventies and sixties, when you had dogs that were police/military and dogs doing plenty of guide work coming from the same dogs. There was no division back then so a litter could very ably produce a guide dog and also a police dog and also a good pet to somebody. ALL from same litter. THIS was the true German Shepherd of utility. I sometimes forget that many people have never seen the breed except for the divisions and THINK you can't have one without compromisng the other. Maybe today by many breeders you can't, but this was not always the case. My bad!!!


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Also, when the breed was a true utility dog which proved its worth as a working dog, if you look at the pics of these dogs you will see that their conformation was different then today's dogs. We don't have to guess if these dogs could work and serve man with the conformation they had then, its today's dogs with a somewhat different conformation that is seen to be lacking in the work force. So I ask, should I breed for the conformation of the sixties (which was proven in the ring and field ), or breed for today's conformation that no longer shows much proof in the field. Which conformation is really for the betterment of what the dog should be????I'm a little confused.:wub::wub:


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

cliffson1 said:


> I wholeheartily agree that the German Shepherd should be first and foremost an utility dog. I kinda of thought that people would remember back to the seventies and sixties, when you had dogs that were police/military and dogs doing plenty of guide work coming from the same dogs. There was no division back then so a litter could very ably produce a guide dog and also a police dog and also a good pet to somebody. ALL from same litter. THIS was the true German Shepherd of utility. I sometimes forget that many people have never seen the breed except for the divisions and THINK you can't have one without compromisng the other. Maybe today by many breeders you can't, but this was not always the case. My bad!!!



But you see, what changed here wasn't the dogs. It was the people and the mentality.

Back in the day, and I think you will agree, these dogs fell under the category of "Jack of all trades, master of none". They were not the _best_ at any one thing, but rather were simply _good_ at everything. 

Back in the day, the GSD was a "good" guide dog. Some time passes, and people decide that Labs are "better". These people who were once using the shepherds are then forced to evaluate their stock, and adjust according to current demands.

Nowadays, moderation doesn't get you anywhere. If you want to win, you have to have MORE. _More_ drive, and _more_ angulation... so on and so forth. And that's what its become about. Winning. Society has shifted thus... most titled "herding" dogs likely don't even live on a farm, or have actual stock to herd. They chase sheep around in pens with trainers that they drive miles to see, and are given a prefix at trials that somehow prove their "worthiness". And yes, these dogs CAN herd sheep. But that's about it. Because all they have to do is run around in a pen, they no longer _need_ to be able to fight off a wolf, or track a lost animal. All they need to do is win. 

Its a sign of the times. Its not the dogs who have been ruined, its the people. And I wager to say that they could be "fixed" a whole lot faster than we could.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Lex, of course the mentality changed, I think I referenced that early in this topic, BUT the people or mentality have changed the dog!!! They don't look the same,(in many cases), they don't work the same, and many people THINK that there are two different dogs, one for conformation and one for work. Pfui!!! I think the dogs that can't settle down in house or kennel is just as faulty as the dog that lacks courage as the dog that has excessive angulation. All of these things are faulty. 
When they started changing the Sch tests partially because these new type conformation dogs would never make it over a six foot straight wall(and they needed their degree to breed the dog in Europe), the physical as well as mental toughness started to decline in the breed.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I didn't mean to imply that show conformation is indicative of proper working conformation. I am not sure we know what that is exactly. 

I was saying that some working dogs are considered free of major conformational faults in the arena where conformation is evaluated.
Unfortunately to my way of thinking, there is not a place to exhibit working conformation. We only have the ring system and the "best" conformation is a moving target there. There is no place to show a working dog really, just a place to work a show dog.

My show dogs have been bred for one thing primarily and that is to run around the ring. The conformation candidate is chosen from amongst its littermates based on the perception of where the fickle finger of fate (the judge) is likely to point. This would not make the show ring a good place for evaluation of working structure. 

OF course, it is a good idea to be free of major faults. I think we could safely say loose ligamentation is not going to serve a working dog well. 
Besides avoiding obvious extremity, what sort of structure is best for the working dog? I always figured that what drove the dog internally could often make up the difference in lesser structural issues when at work. 

I now have to have a lot of dogs to do a lot of things with the German Shepherd breed. This is so impractical, and this right in middle of one of the most "practical" of breeds! Pfui is right!


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Samba,
If you go look at the German and American dogs from the showring up to the mid sixties, you will see SHOW dogs that are and produced working dogs. When Atravis brought up "mentality", here is an example of mentality change pre divsion split. In those days you bred your dog to the strongest dog you could find (mentally), that could also improve your structure if necessary. A show dog was the best stuctured puppy out of a litter bred for strong shepherd traits. There might be one or two dogs in a litter with show capability but also in that litter were dogs that would end up in guide school, military, pet home,etc. Today and the past thirty five years, the mentality has been to breed certain dogs to "run around a ring". So type, color, croup, shoulder, extreme gait, become more important then breeding for strength in working traits for which the dog was created. So over time certain traits such as "NERVE" is diluted to such a degree that the GS is only a GS in shell. The true essence of the older GS was the strong "NERVE" that allowed the dog to be trained to do anything. It was not the "drive" that many misinformed new breeders, either strive for more of, to the extreme, or the equally misinformed breeders use as an excuse to not breed to working type dogs. The essence of the breed derives from the dog's solid nerve, (breeding strong to strong), so that when nerve is never compromised then the drivey dog can settle down, the pretty dog is not a spook outside the ring, the family dog can use discretionary abilities to "know" good people and situations from savory ones. 
Nerve allows the dog to have the moxie to go over the straight wall, to be a red cross dog in a war zone, to lead a visually impaired person in a major city and protect that person if some thing untoward was occurring. This is what makes a Germa Shepherd, and without it you do not have a German Shepherd. To bring this around to topic, if the breed in general had the true shepherd nerve, people wouldn't have some of the uninformed perceptions of Sch dogs and the breed in general. A dog with great nerve is approachable because it can control its fear, sharpness, drive, etc., so as to be taught to certain things are not acceptable. There are many expert breeders who don't have a clue as to real German Shepherd breeding, or willfully is trying to change the breed to fit what they want it to be.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

One last thing and I'm outta here because I'm starting to become preachie and I'm trying to work on that.
The dogs of the past weren't perfect by any means, you had sharp dogs, you had ears that didn't stand, you had bad structure, (although often the skinny ugly dogs were the best working dogs ), you had faded pigments, you usually had a variety of stuctural type in a litter,....you had many things that people sought to improve upon when they bred. But you almost NEVER saw German Shepherds with that "worried" look in their eyes, or the tail tucked underneath, etc. And this is the mentality difference, when you rarely saw dogs like this responsible breeders in those days would NEVER breed this dog. Actually, nobody would breed to this type dog because it looked so unGerman Shepherd like. Don't want more of those for godsakes. So this lack of nerve self regulated itself. Today??? A croup, over the top drive, beautiful gait, black and orange, all these things will allow so called knowledgable breeders to use dogs that exhibit these mental lacks to the detriment and creation of the "new" German Shepherd. No it wasn't perfect back then, but it was FAR more functional, and I always thought I gravitated to this breed because of its functionality to do anything.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Cliff, don't leave the thread yet!!!! It is fascinating reading about your experience and your insight is eye-opening and so on point!

To me, seeing the vast split of today betweem the types of shepherds, and the disasters coming out from pet breedings and clueless BYB, how did ordinary, pet owners of 30 years ago _know_ what to look for when breeding their GSD's? It is an honest question, I'm not critizicing or questioning at all. How many people today would even know what good nerve is, what defines good temperament. How many people, breeders or ordinary dog owners would be able assess their own dogs fairly and be able to find that dog to breed to in order to preserve what they had?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Lucia,
The irony is that you had a much better chance of getting the "type" of dog that the standard describes from BYB back then, then you will from many many of the "reputable" breeders of today. Most of this is because most reputable breeders of today breed colors, hips, angulation, drive, head size, gait, etc. They don't breed "dogs!", but specialized aspects of the breed to further "their" endeavors. You cannot specialize a utility all around dog without losing the utility and all aroundedness. Cant be done, hasn't been done, and now they have many people thinking this creation is representative of breed function. 
Again, there are some people who are still breeding good German Shepherds, but they are few as reflected by the loss of the breed in the vocational world.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Cliff, you'll get an "amen" from me on your comments. I've given up trying to convince the younger generations that today's German shepherds are not the same animal as they were in the 60's and early 70's because of the very reasons you listed. I'll add that training the German shepherd dogs in the 60's and early 70's was a breeze - intelligent, versatile, well bred German shepherd dogs are a joy to train, and could do most any task it faced whether in the show ring or the working field.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I knew something was up when I saw that people's pets were once conscripted for war service. They were just normal GSDs living very well in family homes. I thought that no matter what particular role the dogs played in the war effort, them must certainly have had decent nerves generally to give it a go.

To do that now, there are some you are going to have catch first.


----------

