# Conformation lines,work lines,BYB,?????



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

IMO, one of the biggest regressions the breed has made is the development of these "lines" of dogs that now allow a person to "only" look at a picture of a dog and identify the dog. This should not be ,imo. So my question to the list is what makes a dog a conformation dog? Is it good conformation or is it the line the dog comes from. Is a dog from supposedly conformation lines with a "G" rating, or missing testicle, or oversized, or collie head, a conformation dog if it is say black and red or is a sibling of the Grand Victor?
Is a working dog a dog that has proven itself as a top sport dog or service dog, or is a working dog a dog from the Czech/Sable/DDR lines?
And what constitutes a BYB dog? Is it a dog bred from a breeder that isn't reputable,(whatever that is), is it something that can be looked at and ascertained, is it from "work" lines or "conformation" lines?
This drives me crazy, and I would like to hear some of the reasons for this condition today in the breed.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

cliffson1 said:


> IMO, one of the biggest regressions the breed has made is the development of these "lines" of dogs that now allow a person to "only" look at a picture of a dog and identify the dog. This should not be ,imo.


In any breed, you can distinguish a BYB dog from one that is well-bred. That's not GSD-specific and has nothing to do with "lines".



> So my question to the list is what makes a dog a conformation dog? Is it good conformation or is it the line the dog comes from. Is a dog from supposedly conformation lines with a "G" rating, or missing testicle, or oversized, or collie head, a conformation dog if it is say black and red or is a sibling of the Grand Victor?


A dog is from conformation/show/high lines if the breeder(s) in that pedigree have been breeding for that specific purpose - to make a better conformation show dog. "A show dog" is generally understood to be a dog that is or could successfully be shown. There are plenty of pet dogs from show lines that aren't suitable for showing.



> Is a working dog a dog that has proven itself as a top sport dog or service dog, or is a working dog a dog from the Czech/Sable/DDR lines?


A working lines dog is from lines where the dogs were worked or bred for work. While that usually comes from certain regions, if you had dogs that were American-bred for 5 generations with the realistic purpose of being worked, I'd consider those "working lines". "A working dog" is a dog that works, a dog that doesn't work is a pet from working lines. "A working dog" can also refer to any lines, or no lines at all, because "working" focuses on the ability, not the pedigree or even the breed.



> And what constitutes a BYB dog? Is it a dog bred from a breeder that isn't reputable,(whatever that is), is it something that can be looked at and ascertained, is it from "work" lines or "conformation" lines?


A BYB dog is a dog bred irresponsibly; probably one that never should've been bred and who was bred for money, "cute puppies", the miracle of birth, or any other number of idiotic reasons. Yes, generally you can look at a BYB dog and tell that it's BYB, because it won't look the same as show lines and oftentimes not even like a working line dog. Remember that with working dogs, conformation determines function, so conformation is still relevant. 

BYB dogs are usually not from any lines. They may have some titled dogs way back in the pedigree (oftentimes show lines, one to two champions all the way back), but rarely do they have parents or even grandparents that are titled in either work or show. They are just pets produced by someone who randomly bred two GSDs together. Nowadays BYBs are starting to get their hands on some "czech/DDR" dogs and breeding them, and those dogs may have more working dogs in their recent past, but I don't know that I'd call them "working lines" just because the BYB produced sable puppies.



> This drives me crazy, and I would like to hear some of the reasons for this condition today in the breed.


In many performance breeds, you have a major dichotomy between the high/show lines and the working lines. You see this in border collies, huskies, labs (I wince every time I see a show "pigador") - pretty much any breed where you have two subsets of fanciers, those who work their dogs, and those who show them.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Shavy wrote;
Remember that with working dogs, conformation determines function, so conformation is still relevant. 
Cliff asks,
Can you give me examples of work that requires conformation to function?
Thanks for your insights into this phenomena.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Shavy said:


> In many performance breeds, you have a major dichotomy between the high/show lines and the working lines. You see this in border collies, huskies, labs (I wince every time I see a show "pigador") - pretty much any breed where you have two subsets of fanciers, those who work their dogs, and those who show them.


That's true, that is VERY common in a lot of breeds.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

At least here we have one thing less to worry, there are working lines (no ddr, czech, west german, holland, etc) and showlines (no german showlines and american showlines, just the first ones)

Since WL are no more than 2%, if not less, of the GSD population, the average public knows only one type, the black and red and that would be all there is, even BYB are blacks and red and everyone want Rex to have in the garden. Also WL are not only few, but most of them owned by a close group of freaks that for the most part knows each other (small country, almost a village), are very specific in why the want those ugly dogs and pffff... for some reason don't think the fun is in running in circles. 

But we have the other problem, the different lines are out there it is only that 98-99% of the importation of new dogs came from the same bloodlines. so to say that in here there is no such thing as a separation of lines would be to put a blindfold over our eyes. What is worst, most _breeders_ are not aware, have never heard that the black and red GSD os not the only GSD.

Personally, I have the following problem: My name is Catu and I am not a GSD person...

What! what I am doing here then?! Well... I am a working dog person, my first meeting with the GSD was AFTER I started in the world of dog training and SAR. In my philosophical moments my question is not what is happening to the GSD, it is if we need dog breeds at all. Pedigrees are useful, they provide information, but... do we need to put dogs into pigeonholes? Lets face it, different types of dogs had existed for thousands of years, but all the "breed" concept is only thing of this last century, it is a fashion that has lasted too long thanks to $$$$. I like the KNPV approach, dirty as it may be in other aspects, like buying FCI pedigrees. 

I wonder if some day, surely not in my lifetime, all this eugenetic fashion will be a thing of the past.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Very interesting post, Catu. You certainly are not an elitist in your thinking.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

If we didn't have breeds with well defined characteristics defined in a standard, then how would you know what to expect when you bought a puppy?

Don't always get what we expect from the standard but at least it is a reasonable expectation given a reputable breeder.

Imagine if you were expecting a Golden temperament and ended up with a hard GSD? Or vice versa?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> then how would you know what to expect when you bought a puppy?


People breed dogs like the Blue Lacy, and could just as easily tell you what certain parents produce just as much as GSD breeders. And the Blue Lacy is only a type of dog, not a breed.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

codmaster said:


> If we didn't have breeds with well defined characteristics defined in a standard, then how would you know what to expect when you bought a puppy?
> 
> Don't always get what we expect from the standard but at least it is a reasonable expectation given a reputable breeder.
> 
> Imagine if you were expecting a Golden temperament and ended up with a hard GSD? Or vice versa?


I will tell you how it would be in my Teletubby World of Fantasy.

Breeds could be like the actual concept of lines. It always would be breeders who want to maintain pure characteristics. Breeders who breed GSDs and only GSDs with the same look and temperament, just as we see today people who work hard to keep the Czech lines pure so the rest of us who only care for performance can have where to look at if we need that kind of dog and not only crosses of crosses. Same would be with Golden Retriever and the Chihuahua people, there is nothing wrong with that.

But if me, as a SAR handler, am looking for a dog with the nerve of the GSD and the drive of the Malinois there would be no God Law that would forbid me to get a mix of both types. Then someone may like what I have, but would like more retrieve drive and cross my kind of dog with a field Labrador retriever. 

As I said in my previous post I'm not against registries and pedigrees, they hold too much useful information that can't be lost. But today it is too easy: It is is like a dog supermarket. You want pointy ears? get a dog from the GSD shelf, you want floppy ears? get a dog from the retriever shelves... or a petstore is not basically that? In my idealized world people would need to do their own homework, would need to look at the label of the product they want: the pedigree, and not only look for a bunch of acronyms and a few big names, but to know how much of each type of dog there is on the ancestors, how much linebred the dog is on each one. People could decide if they want to sacrifice type and get dogs with a variety of them on the pedigree to gain hybrid vigor or get a more pure type to raise their bet of having exactly what they want... but would be a choice, not something imposed by an agency, be it AKC or FCI.

And all that with a smiling sun in the background and bunnies hopping around...


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Catu,
"nerve of the GSD and the drive of the Malinois there would be no God Law that would forbid me to get a mix of both types"

You just stated the case for breeds very strongly above! GSD nerve and Mal drive - These are BREED characteristics and thus you do know where to look for the characteristics that you want! Well said! Thank you!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

And of course you are free to cross breed and see if you get what you want in the mongrel offspring!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> People breed dogs like the Blue Lacy, and could just as easily tell you what certain parents produce just as much as GSD breeders. And the Blue Lacy is only a type of dog, not a breed.


How do you differentiate between a "BREED" and a "TYPE" of dog?


Funny it looks like most sites about this dog do refer to it as a breed - and give a set of characteristics that seem pretty consitent. Only thing I saw was that it is not registered with the AKC but other organizations do seem to register it.

Are you saying/implying that if you breed two blue laceys together you will not get consistent similar puppies? If you do get that, then I suggest that this is a dog BREED, similar to a GSD but with different characteristics!


----------



## ShawnM (Jan 28, 2007)

I don't even go by pedigrees or titles anymore. I've seen so many pencil whipped titles it's disgusting. If the dog or puppy has the traits I'm looking for, I get it. I've seen good and bad in all conformation, working and back yard bred dogs. I've seen untitled (working on Sch 1) rescue dogs blow big money Sch 111 dogs out of the water in bitework and OB. 

As far as health issues within the lines, they can happen to anyone. I've seen big breeders cover issues up and I've seen back yard breeders not know what they're doing. It's all a crapshoot and we just hope we get lucky and make the right choice. Either way, they always end up to be the best dog in the world somehow.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

codmaster said:


> And of course you are free to cross breed and see if you get what you want in the mongrel offspring!


That is the fun! :wild:

Genetically the only way to know exactly what you will get in a pup is cloning.
Sadly, dividing dogs into breeds, breeds into lines, lines into bloodlines without never out-crossing it is exactly what we are already doing. But there is a point where it backfires at us.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Are you saying/implying that if you breed two blue laceys together you will not get consistent similar puppies?


I'm pretty sure that's not what I said at all. In fact, what I referenced was the people knowing their studs/brood bitches and knowing what they tend to throw for traits.

You'll get dogs with similar temperament/drive/nerve/personality traits, but the look of the dog could be all over the place.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I think dogs like the Blue Lacy are still breeds. They are just not bred for conformation so they may be less consistent in appearance because they're being bred for a job rather than a look.
There are other breeds like that as well, usually being used as working dogs of some sort (herding, livestock guardian, hunting, etc...)


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

codmaster said:


> GSD nerve and Mal drive - These are BREED characteristics and thus you do know where to look for the characteristics that you want!


You are right, semantics, I could have called them breed, I did not because I thought it could be confusing. 

Hey codmaster, when was the last time you ate chicken? I bet it was a Broiler. Is Broiler a breed? And the Camborough pig?

I make it sound idealistic because of the current dog culture, but I did not created my Teletubby world, I copied it from the cattle, dairy, pig and poultry industry... and basically every domestic animal but dogs and horses, both dominated by fashion. And in the last 60 years those fields had got massive improvements in production by crossings, that we have not seen in dog and horse performance by narrowing of the genepool by pure selection of the fittest.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Catu said:


> That is the fun! :wild:
> 
> Genetically the only way to know exactly what you will get in a pup is cloning.
> Sadly, dividing dogs into breeds, breeds into lines, lines into bloodlines without never out-crossing it is exactly what we are already doing. But there is a point where it backfires at us.


Breeding, or more specifically responsible breeding to try to improve the breed is certainly not an exact science for a large number of reasons but it can be considered an art in that some few people seem to know how to match a male and a female to have a good chance of getting at least one puppy that is "better' (depending on how we measure this) than either parent.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Catu said:


> ......
> Hey codmaster, when was the last time you ate chicken? I bet it was a Broiler. Is Broiler a breed? And the Camborough pig?
> 
> .........


Chicken is easy - white meat or dark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

I'm lost....
You can mix breeds now and try to build a better dog as long as you aren't interested in dealing with the AKC etc. 

Are you saying you think the AKC should do away with breed specific standards as they apply to conformation ? If yes, then what would the AKC use for registering dogs...temperament, working ability maybe? 
I'm seeing visions of a new registry that has Couch Potato on it. 

Barbara
Tolland, CT


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> I'm lost....
> Are you saying you think the AKC should do away with breed specific standards as they apply to conformation ? If yes, then what would the AKC use for registering dogs...temperament, working ability maybe?


The only thing the AKC uses now for registration is having two parents that are registered as that breed. Doing away with conformation standards wouldn't change that, but it WOULD make it a lot harder to find (as someone mentioned up-thread) a dog that looks like you would expect it to. While people now are breeding AKC sheps that don't meet the AKC conformation standard (take a look at the pooch in your avatar, for one), the registry does hopefully guarantee that all of the dogs in that puppy's pedigree are purebred shepherds, so there can't be THAT much deviation from the standard. A BYB GSD can usually be recognized as a GSD, albeit a poorly bred one. If you look at the establishment of new breeds, you'll see it takes a good few generations in order to stabilize the characteristics you're breeding for, whether it's conformation or temperament or working ability. Even in purebreds bred for a specific purpose (let's say SchH), you'll have the occasional puppy who just isn't fit for doing the work. Suggesting that you can breed a couple of random dogs who both work well and expect them to consistently produce good working results, seems like specious reasoning to me.

Cliffson, you asked about form mirroring function. A great, easy to see example is the extreme rear angulation of today's American show line GSDs. These extreme examples lack the efficiency of motion required to do strenuous work that the GSD was created for. Another would be the oversized GSDs who are being bred by BYBs. These dogs, again, are too large for the work that they were meant to do; they can't keep up with the medium-sized working GSD who herds sheep, runs agility courses, or chases down bad guys.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I think we have the different types because the working aspect of the breed is dwindling. We move farther and farther from our agrarian roots where dog and owner were an earthy lot with various tough tasks to do during the day. 

Culturally, dogs are now bred for very narrow functions and most of them do not require the all-roundness from the more pastoral times. Once a "group" breeding dogs for their narrow venue decides on the type they are going to prefer, there is little push to bring in other "types". Then we can recognize the types by eye due to isolation of the lines in the venues.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Quote: >> While people now are breeding AKC sheps that don't meet the AKC conformation standard *(take a look at the pooch in your avatar, for one),* the registry does hopefully guarantee that all of the dogs in that puppy's pedigree are purebred shepherds, so there can't be THAT much deviation from the standard. *A BYB GSD can usually be recognized as a GSD, albeit a poorly bred one.*>>

I looked long and hard for a good breeder so references that imply my dogs, or all other whites, might be poorly bred or come from BYB's get under my skin. I don't think your intent was to personally take a shot at my dogs...but I'm going to respond anyway. 

The breeder we chose is actively involved in the AWSA, she is also a founding member and active participant in the White Shepherd Genetics project. Information about her line is readily available for anyone who wishes to access the WSGP's online database. Her dogs and test results can be found on the OFA site.

Her line has produced dogs that excel in tracking, herding, flyball, agility, obedience etc. etc. She has proven time and again that whites are not subpar shepherds. I have complete faith that our dogs, with those faulty white faces, are a wonderful example of good breeding. I don't think all shepherd owners can say the same. Not all whites come from BYB's. There are breeders working very hard to maintain the standards AND the original colors of the breed. Personal preference I guess.

Just in case you're interested:

The American White Shepherd Association (AWSA) is fighting for breed seperation. I believe this puts them in an entirely different class than BYB's who ignore AKC standards. 
The other option is to persuade the AKC to change the standards. Considering white was deemed a fault in 1968 and old habits die hard, this is unlikely.

The AWSA breed standards http://www.awsaclub.com/standard.htm are actually very similar to the GSD's breed standards. I believe the size and proportion (general appearance) are identical. 

White Shepherds Genetics Project: http://www.wsgenetics.org/ and
http://www.wsgenetics.com/index_YVZT.html
I have no idea why they have two sites...

I didn't mean this to be a rant...just trying to take the stigma off my dogs and the other well bred whites.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Quote: >> While people now are breeding AKC sheps that don't meet the AKC conformation standard *(take a look at the pooch in your avatar, for one),* the registry does hopefully guarantee that all of the dogs in that puppy's pedigree are purebred shepherds, so there can't be THAT much deviation from the standard. *A BYB GSD can usually be recognized as a GSD, albeit a poorly bred one.*>>
> 
> I looked long and hard for a good breeder so references that imply my dogs, or all other whites, might be poorly bred or come from BYB's get under my skin. I don't think your intent was to personally take a shot at my dogs...but I'm going to respond anyway.


I apologize; there was absolutely no connection between your two bolded statements. I was making two separate points: 1) white shepherds don't fall within the breed standard and are still bred by breeders and are AKC registerable, and 2) that BYB dogs still look like shepherds due to the fact that people somewhere along the line cared about the appearance and registration of their dogs and so there isn't an unrecognizable deviation from what a shepherd should be, in most cases.

I have no issues with white shepherds and am aware that there are many conscientious breeders working with them. I hope that clarifies.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Catu said:


> Genetically the only way to know exactly what you will get in a pup is cloning.


Genetically, yes. However, say you have two puppies that are clones. One is raised in a loving home with positive reinforcement. Living a puppy's dream life. Socialized to the max, trained pretty much as well as any human could. But the OTHER puppy is in a crate alone all day and never sees the light of day and never goes outside. The only time it gets human interaction is when it's being beaten or screamed at. Will these dogs have the same mental characteristics seeing as how they're genetically identical? No. 
A lot of how a dog (and everything else) is in how it's raised.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not what I said at all. In fact, what I referenced was the people knowing their studs/brood bitches and knowing what they tend to throw for traits.
> 
> You'll get dogs with similar temperament/drive/nerve/personality traits, but the look of the dog could be all over the place.


I am curious as to why you think that some characteristics(drive, temperament/nerve/personality) would be based on genes and others (size, color, shoulder angle, etc. etc.) not be?

Actually the conformation stuff is probably more based on inheritance than the more personality related stuff.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> ................................................
> 
> Just in case you're interested:
> 
> ...


Actually, for what ever reasons, white was a disqualifying fault in the US standard.

It would be very difficult for me to consider the white GSD as a seperate breed when you could have white and the other regular colored puppies coming in the same litter (as far as I know anyway!).


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Actually, for what ever reasons, white was a disqualifying fault in the US standard.
> 
> It would be very difficult for me to consider the white GSD as a seperate breed when you could have white and the other regular colored puppies coming in the same litter (as far as I know anyway!).


What about the fact that belgian shepherds can throw puppies of a different type in a litter?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Shavy wrote;
"Cliffson, you asked about form mirroring function. A great, easy to see example is the extreme rear angulation of today's American show line GSDs. These extreme examples lack the efficiency of motion required to do strenuous work that the GSD was created for."

Cliff writes;
Now I am confused. Your original premise was that form was necessary for function. Then you tell me that the extreme angulated dogs in ASR are examples of form not being able to function(along with people who breed oversized dogs that you say are BYB), but if I understand correctly the dogs in the showring are evaluated by competent Judges, based on form and the standard. There is a disconnect here somewhere. You are saying that these highest rated form dogs, as evaluated by Judges, cannot function DUE to structure(which is form) in that they are too angulated.
Are they BYB also, for breeding for extremes that are not functionable; as you have labeled the breeders of oversized dogs, or does the Judges ribbons and status give them a pass on the end result?


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

cliffson1 said:


> Cliff writes;
> Now I am confused. Your original premise was that form was necessary for function. Then you tell me that the extreme angulated dogs in ASR are examples of form not being able to function(along with people who breed oversized dogs that you say are BYB), but if I understand correctly the dogs in the showring are evaluated by competent Judges, based on form and the standard. There is a disconnect here somewhere. You are saying that these highest rated form dogs, as evaluated by Judges, cannot function DUE to structure(which is form) in that they are too angulated.


Yes. We're discussing working the dogs and how basic conformation contributes to a dog's working ability (based on a previous comment of mine stating that even working dogs show some conformation similarity as form mirrors function - if they looked like bulldogs, they wouldn't be able to perform like GSDs). So those dogs that are prized for their extreme angulation and that wobbly floating gait, wouldn't be able to perform in physical work as easily or readily as the working GSDs. It's no secret that the original GSD did not look like the american show lines today. The reason there is such a dichotomy in the breed (as I mentioned before) is because at some point, people started focusing on the look of the breed, not the function.



> Are they BYB also, for breeding for extremes that are not functionable; as you have labeled the breeders of oversized dogs, or does the Judges ribbons and status give them a pass on the end result?


Yup, that. They get a pass because they are following some standard, and breed responsibly (health screenings, calculated matings, screened homes, etc). A BYB by definition is someone who breeds without intent to further the breed.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Shavy said:


> What about the fact that belgian shepherds can throw puppies of a different type in a litter?


That also seems very weird to me.In fact I didn't really believe it when I first heard it. Doesn't seem like they can really be different breeds if that happens, but it is so.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

They are only different breeds in the AKC. In the rest of the world they are one breed, 4 different varieties.


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

lhczth said:


> They are only different breeds in the AKC. In the rest of the world they are one breed, 4 different varieties.


But we're discussing the legitimization of the white GSD as a separate breed in the AKC. Seems like a perfect analogy of why they should allow it.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

This has happened more than with just the Belgian dogs. In 1979 the Norwich Terriers with dropped ears became a separate breed in AKC, the Norfolk. Both ears types were accepted in the standard previously. Sure, the white dogs can be a separate breed.

These things happen along the way. In 1863 the Beauceron varieties were split. The Briard becoming the long coated variety.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

codmaster said:


> Actually, for what ever reasons, white was a disqualifying fault in the US standard.





codmaster said:


> It would be very difficult for me to consider the white GSD as a seperate breed when you could have white and the other regular colored puppies coming in the same litter (as far as I know anyway!).




That's true although it's not an accident or a mutation as some think. Both parents have to carry for white to produce white puppies. 

It's probably more information that most people want but suffice it to say, in Europe the FCI recognizes the Berger Blanc Swiss/White Swiss Shepherd, as a seperate breed. (these are white shepherds)

The United Kennel club recognizes the white shepherd.

The AWSA is still trying to negotiate with the AKC and the German Shepherd Dog Club of America for breed seperation. They don't want the color but they don't seem to want to let it go either. 

Adding more confusion I think it's the White German Shepherd Club of America that doesn't want breed seperation, they simply want white to no longer be a fault with the AKC. At least I think that's what they want unless I'm mixing them up with another club. 

It's all very confusing with valid pros and cons coming from all sides. Breed seperation is really hard to accomplish.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I am curious as to why you think that some characteristics(drive, temperament/nerve/personality) would be based on genes and others (size, color, shoulder angle, etc. etc.) not be?


When did I ever say that size, color and the like weren't based on genetics? They certainly are, but that wasn't my point. My point was breeders of "cross type" dogs that are doing it for improvement of their working stock could tell you just as much about what one of their stud dogs throws as a purebred breeder could.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Shavy said:


> Yup, that. They get a pass because they are following some standard, and breed responsibly (health screenings, calculated matings, screened homes, etc). A BYB by definition is someone who breeds without intent to further the breed.


What about the breeders of non-standard dogs who do health screenings, calculated matings, screen homes etc and are breeding to further what they think the breed should be?


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Politics and greed - the root of all evil in the German shepherd dog. The exclusion of the White shepherd is a bunch of crap. The original ruling was based on mis-information. So the white color should be accepted as a German shepherd.And although blue and liver color gets a bad rap, it would make more sense if they were "not perfered colors" rather being called a fault. Because it is not a "fault" but rather a genetic combination which effects coat color and nothing else.

Maybe we need a Rump Draging breed, a Hock Walker breed, a Squirrely breed, a fence running breed, and a Foaming at the Mouth Breed of Shepherd. Oh, and of course, the Blue Shepherd, the White Shepherd, the Panda shepherd, and the Liver shepherd.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Shavy, I appreciate your candor and honesty on giving the SL a pass, though I don't agree. They have been given a pass for last 35 years and as a result you have what you have. But honesty of an opinion is better to me than excuses for lack of function. I also believe the end result of breeders over a period of time constitutes a good breeder. Consistency and good results over time removes the luck both good and bad which is also a vital part of breeding, IMO. Thanks for your insights.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

……and all the GSD breeders, and all the GSD owners, couldn't put the GSD back together again.....

This is the opposite end of the same discussion I prompted months ago about breaking the lines up and going our separate ways.

You have but three options to discuss, 1.) status quo, 2.) unification, or 3.) separation. 

We reasonably established separation was not of interest on my previous thread…this thread seems to indicate unification or "one" GSD is less than pragmatic because of human nature (politics & greed)….so status quo seems to be what we're left with?

Isn't status quo really separation without official acknowledgement? As a representative of the GSD consumer market, and at this point in my GSD experience, I would only ever own working lines going forward…..just as there are other informed folks who would only ever buy red & blacks (WGSL) or others who would only ever own ASL. If that condition persists, isn’t the market inherently propagating genetic divergence in the breed?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Mr. Oliver, you are correct, but time tells all. There are segments of the breed that are maintaining or growing, and there are segments that are declining. Time will remove some elements and then we'll see from there. Let's keep it going in the direction it is going. Everybody is happy that their segment is correct and growing, so the owners and users will ultimately prevail.JMO


----------



## Shavy (Feb 12, 2009)

cliffson1 said:


> Shavy, I appreciate your candor and honesty on giving the SL a pass, though I don't agree. They have been given a pass for last 35 years and as a result you have what you have. But honesty of an opinion is better to me than excuses for lack of function. I also believe the end result of breeders over a period of time constitutes a good breeder. Consistency and good results over time removes the luck both good and bad which is also a vital part of breeding, IMO. Thanks for your insights.


To be honest, I don't agree with breeding dogs with such extreme angulation that they can't perform the duties for which the breed was originally created. I'm not a fan of extremism in any case; the GSD was meant to be a well-rounded dog capable of fulfilling many functions in its daily life. However, I cannot with intellectual honesty say that the person who breeds winning show line shepherds is on par with the BYB who puts together Mitzy and Fido because "they'd make such cute puppies". Whether those show breeders are irresponsible or not, in pursuing their evolving vision of the breed, is a stickier matter.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

cliffson1 said:


> ......time tells all. There are segments of the breed that are maintaining or growing, and there are segments that are declining. Time will remove some elements and then we'll see from there.....


I suppose you are correct as well…you’re alluding to economic Darwinism or financial survival of the fittest…..on the demand side.

My trust and faith rests on the supply side of the equation. Those who do not breed for finance, but rather for value…there is a significant difference here, the least of which is profit.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Shavy,
In all honesty I don't think extreme angulation is the primary reason many of these dogs aren't functional, but its definitely a major one. I actually see the socalled knowledgable breeders who breed nonfunctional dogs in lower regard. I see many dogs functioning very highly from what appears to be BYB in different venues. Maybe it was luck, maybe it was because in their Backyardness they tried to breed the best dog they knew to their Fido. But how can you excuse people WHO know the breed standard for producing dogs that are almost nonexistant in most active venues. 
Oliver, since we aren't going to get rid of greed and status, money and ribbons, ego and laziness, then you have to rely on people only seeking what they read the breed should be, and let the people that are breeding GS for these other purposes slowly isolate themselves. It takes time but I have seen it occur in past thirty some years and today you are seeing many more sound dogs here in the states than you did in the mid eighties and early nineties. Patience my friend!


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Thanks Cliff for the light of hope...


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

W.Oliver said:


> My trust and faith rests on the supply side of the equation. Those who do not breed for finance, but rather for value…there is a significant difference here, the least of which is profit.


Sorry Oliver, but here I have to disagree with you. Great damage has been done, in all kind of matters, not only dog breeding, with the best of intentions. If someone breeds with all their heart for what on the long run is wrong, the result can be worst than to let luck, or natural selection or whatever to take its own course. What is "the betterment of the breed" if not an attempt to change it to our own taste? I preffer "to maintain the breed" than to make it better, because all "betters" end up in extremes.

To me someone who breeds for money is a puppy miller, whatever he has 2 females or 200, while most BYB breed for other reasons than show, sport or serious work, but not that often for money, in my reality at least. But if a BYB breeds because his dogs are good with kids and bark to intruders it is not different than someone who breeds for a long croup or a dark mask. Both honestly want to produce what they consider the best. IMHO, the first do less harm to the breed than the second but he will be crucified while the second gets a label of "reputable".


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Catu said:


> But if a BYB breeds because his dogs are good with kids and bark to intruders it is not different than someone who breeds for a long croup or a dark mask. Both honestly want to produce what they consider the best. IMHO, the first do less harm to the breed than the second but he will be crucified while the second gets a label of "reputable".


That's so true it's sad.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

Catu, we agree..think of it this way; 
Finance = "betters" 
Value = "maintain the breed", 
where my specific point of reference are working dogs.


----------

