# Should the breed standard be re-written?



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

By that, I mean, written in a manner that places health and temperament over physical conformation.

It seems that the vast majority of the standard, as written today, addresses physical characteristics. There is only a very general, and vague, take on temperament and zero mention of vigor… that seems odd to me.

I certainly could be missing something here as I am far from a breed expert.

*Questions:*
Is it even possible to re-write standards? Who has the authority to do so? Would switching the emphasis lead to different problems? How can advances in science help control against those problems?

Thoughts?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I would follow and support the SV, not the AKC with the standard description. UKC even looks at the total dog, not just what the structure is.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Before the breed standard is changed committee (s) are formed to discuss the issue (s) and they present their findings at a GSDCA meeting. If the votes are in favor of the change (Board of Directors vote I believe??). The changes then have to be presented to the AKC in writing and finally, members of the GSDCA vote for or against the suggested changes. 

They're going through it right now. The GSDCA just announced that they're going to seek a change in the standard for the whites, removing the disqualifying fault and making it a serious fault instead. They might be doing something about the long stocks too but I'm not sure about that. 

Changing the standard except for small rewrites is a big deal, I doubt you'll see them changing it on any large scale in the near future.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If the GSDCA changes the standard, it would mostly change as it suits the ASL dogs. 

Actually, the AKC standard and the SV standard are not all that different, though obviously, interpretation of the standard seems to be different from Germany to the US. 

I think that writing health checks into the standard would mean changing the standard regularly to incorporate advances in tests. I just do not see that happening any time soon. 

Changing the standard to include more in the area of temperament, well, if it is the GSDCA, then it will suit the ASL dogs, and the temperament that is currently expected in that arena. I heard a AKC Judge/breeder of GSDs say to a group something to the effect that if the weather was like it is tonight -- some thunder and lightning, she would take that into consideration. What does that mean exactly, that the dogs are expected to be sensitive to storms? Or a dog who is sensitive to storms would not be marked low in temperament because of it. Frankly, I think that GSDs shouldn't have notable storm sensitivities, and if they do, it should be a serious fault. 

We all want to improve the health and temperament of the breed. The problem is that the various lines of GSDs are not going to agree on what excellent temperament is.


----------



## Apple (Jun 21, 2013)

I'm not sure if its different, but in Australia the GSD breed standard lists "nervousness, weak character and unprovoked aggression" as a disqualifying fault. Here's the link to the Australian Breed Standard.
http://www.ankc.org.au/breed_details.aspx?bid=143
I've watched a couple of shepherd shows run by the Victorian German Shepherd Club, and the dogs are tested in a "crowd" situation. Wherein the dog must walk through a crowd and not react. They are also tested with the sound of gunshots to check their nerves. Ill find the link for the videos later if people are interested?  


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

LifeofRiley said:


> By that, I mean, written in a manner that places health and temperament over physical conformation.
> 
> It seems that the vast majority of the standard, as written today, addresses physical characteristics. There is only a very general, and vague, take on temperament and zero mention of vigor… that seems odd to me.


That's pretty much the case for most breeds. The written standard goes into much detail about the physical conformation traits, and not so much about the temperament traits.

I don't think the GSD standard needs to be changed--as it is written, it seems fine to me. The problem is with the way some people interpret the standard. They are putting emphasis, even gross exaggeration on a few physical traits, while basically ignoring temperament.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks everyone for your responses so far!

The SV standard, as written, seems very similar to the AKC version. Although, I do recognize that the SV system requires that there be performance tests before a dog is deemed breed-worthy. 

How has that system worked out? Is the population of GSDs in Germany more robust, more consistent in temperament than over here? 

What recommendations could be made to the GSDCA and the AKC based on the SV system? How can they be implemented? What is the relationship between the United Schutzhund Clubs of American and the GSDCA?

Finally, what objective measures could be included in the standards to improve the overall genetic health of the breed at the population (not individual) level? 

I really am curious… I have no clue.

@ Apple – I, for one, would really enjoy seeing the video. I hope you post it : )


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

LifeofRiley said:


> How has that system worked out? Is the population of GSDs in Germany more robust, more consistent in temperament than over here?


You will hear a hundred different answers from a hundred different people on this.  To a great extent, it's a matter of opinion. However, in general terms, it seems to me that the average German-bred show dog is a bit more robust in temperament than the average American-bred show dog. But I've seen good temperaments and poor temperaments in every bloodline.

Here is my opinion. I think it's great that Germany has a system for testing dogs before they are bred. It's not a perfect system, and it's vulnerable to politics, nepotism, and corruption, as any institution is. But at least it's there, and at least it's SOMETHING. Here in the US we have absolutely nothing. There are lots of voluntary venues for showing, testing, and proving your dog, but all that is *required* is two dogs of the opposite sex with functioning reproductive systems.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I also agree that the SV system is better than nothing, but that isn't saying a whole lot. There are a fair number of dogs that are being pushed through to get that minimum title required for breeding. And this is especially prevalent with bitches that are intended for import to the U.S. as adult, titled dogs. 

I was told by one breeder here in the states that there is a cottage industry built around getting these dogs titled, through hook or crook (midnight trials), bred to prove fertility and then sold to the first U.S. buyer who has stars in their eyes at the "big name" attached to the bitch (How many "Vegas daughters" have been imported into the U.S. and Canada? How many of them are competing here, as opposed to simply spitting out puppies?). I suspect that my dog's dam had a title stuck on with spit and bubble gum, to make her marketable to someone here in the U.S. And the 9 year old retired breeding female that I adopted in 2009 surely was the same. Same story: bred and minimally titled in Europe, bred once or twice over there to prove fertility and then sold to a breeder in the U.S. Never stepped foot on a competition field once here, but certainly bred.

There is NO full proof way to ascertain quality. Or, rather, there is no GREED proof way to do so. I don't know which is better, to be honest. To contend that there are criteria being met(SV), and quality can be assured because of it, or to contend that there is no way to filter quality and to even try is futile (AKC).
Sheilah


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

sit said:


> There is NO full proof way to ascertain quality. Or, rather, there is no GREED proof way to do so. I don't know which is better, to be honest.


Too true, and I don't know either.

I guess I lean toward the SV system just because, while obviously imperfect, it does provide more information, and more information is always better than less.

But it's kind of an academic question because I don't see anything like that happening in the U.S. Voluntary opt-in systems, sure. But even much softer standards like requiring a CGC on the breeding pair... I'm not that optimistic.


----------



## TAResley (Apr 18, 2013)

I do wish the SV would "undo" the exclusion of the White coloration for obvious reasons. And I am not talking about my own bias towards loving that color. Now the difference in interpretation of the standard... I don't know what to say really. If the SV is that unclear that it can be interpreted differently from club to club and country to country, then I think maybe some "fixing" _should_ be done. It seems there is an obnoxious amount of confusion going on because the "standard" that has been placed by the SV has not been followed by the clubs.

However, I think it is asinine for a White GSD to not be considered a GSD in the eyes of the SV. I don't think I would feel this strongly *IF* it was common knowledge that whites would not be given a registration paper calling them *GERMAN SHEPHERDS* -*anywhere*-. 

So maybe an update of the standard is needed to include these kinds of dogs? It was updated to remove them! Why not undo this to save some face and confusion? White was a legit color back in the day then suddenly it changed _after_ the founder of the breed was kicked from his position. Strange!

I personally think they made their bed and they should curl up and take a nap in it (AKA- do a bit of a re-write). If not, they should remove the rights from the kennel clubs to call and register the dogs that do not meet their standard as "German Shepherds". I'd *love* to see how that turns out.


----------



## TAResley (Apr 18, 2013)

Freestep said:


> You will hear a hundred different answers from a hundred different people on this.  To a great extent, it's a matter of opinion. However, in general terms, it seems to me that the average German-bred show dog is a bit more robust in temperament than the average American-bred show dog. But I've seen good temperaments and poor temperaments in every bloodline.
> 
> Here is my opinion. I think it's great that Germany has a system for testing dogs before they are bred. It's not a perfect system, and it's vulnerable to politics, nepotism, and corruption, as any institution is. But at least it's there, and at least it's SOMETHING. Here in the US we have absolutely nothing. There are lots of voluntary venues for showing, testing, and proving your dog, but all that is *required* is two dogs of the opposite sex with functioning reproductive systems.


On this point I agree.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

No matter the standard of any breed, it's left up to interpretation..I may interpret it differently than you (general you)..so changing it here anyway, I don't see it happening.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

A local farmer's market had Dog Days yesterday, lots of interpretations of the GSD standard walking around.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Whiteshepherds said:


> A local farmer's market had Dog Days yesterday, lots of interpretations of the GSD standard walking around.


That has been my observation too. To me, it makes me wonder what the point is of having a breed standard if no one seems to be overseeing it - at the breed (or line) level.

Maybe if someone took a look at the key aspects of temperament that make up the breed, and thought about the overall health of the breed (vs. individual lines), we would have a basis upon which to build a new a new standard/system. 

Maybe, if biddability, endurance, intellect and courage were put forth as the key identifiers of the breed, we would be in a better place. But, it is probably more likely that - without changes to registry oversight - we will only be facing different types of “extreme” problems 10-20 years from now. Because, whether we like it or not, money and ego are involved... and, if left unchecked, they will continue to be the dominant force in the direction of any given breed.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

how many threads have we had , recently even, about utter and complete novices breeding dogs


----------



## GSDGenes (Mar 9, 2006)

Perhaps the AKC standards don't delve into temperament traits etc so much because in a conformation show a judge only has a very short time to judge the dogs. Obviously bad temperaments often are visible in the show ring, such a dog is difficult to judge, and usually gets placed low or even excused.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

I don't know, I am really starting to think that "dog show” results need to stop being considered proof of breed-worthiness - period! No matter the breed. Breed-worthiness should be based on health and temperament. And those aspects should not be judged at dog shows - rather through smart uses of genetic screening (that promote genetic diversity) and temperament testing that emphasizes a dog’s balance, stability and versatility.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

There have been dog shows for longer than the GSD has been a breed. If conformation traits are not used to also judge breed-worthiness, then what would a GSD look like? What would a Cocker Spaniel look like?

I agree that more emphasis needs to be put on health and temperament, but not at the expense of breed type.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

I guess my question is, why does it matter what they look like? Isn't it more important that a German Shepherd behaves like a German Shepherd? That the dogs are able to live longer, healthier lives? 

How do we achieve that balance? The current system doesn't really seem to be doing a good job.

I really don't know the answers here.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

"I agree that more emphasis needs to be put on health and temperament, but not at the expense of breed type. "

I would .


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

LifeofRiley said:


> How do we achieve that balance? The current system doesn't really seem to be doing a good job.


I truly, honestly don't think you can. It doesn't matter what the test is. If there IS a test, people will breed to the test.

If you haven't already seen it and want to take a look at how another breed fancy handled this issue, the American Border Collie Association (ABCA) has an interesting take:

THE ABCA NEEDS YOUR THOUGHTS ON ABCA/AKC

American Border Collie Association: Promoting the Working Border Collie

Key quote:



> *Dogs ineligible for ABCA registration:*
> 
> The ABCA is a working stockdog registry and believes that breeding for conformation standards rather than working ability is detrimental to the health and working ability of the Border Collie. Consequently dogs or bitches which have been named a "Conformation Champion" by a conformation registry are not eligible for ABCA registration, even if they otherwise meet the requirements for registration. The ABCA will de-register any ABCA registered dog or bitch should it be named a "Conformation Champion" after January 1, 2004, and will not register the offspring of any dog or bitch named a "Conformation Champion" after that date.


So there's one extreme: the working border collie people will not recognize a show champion, to the extent that a dog who wins an AKC conformation championship is stripped of its ABCA standing and so are its progeny.

However, AKC _performance_ titles are just fine, so there are a lot of dual-registered AKC agility and ABCA dogs.

The ABCA had the pull to do this because (a) at the time, they outnumbered AKC registrations by a pretty significant number (not sure if this is still true); and (b) most people get Border Collies to compete in obedience and agility, not the show ring. So there's no conflict between most AKC BC people (who aren't doing conformation shows anyway) and the ABCA.

But even with that rule in place to protect the breed from the influence of the conformation ring, there are plenty of BC lines being superspecialized for obedience and agility. I think a lot of these dogs can still herd, to a reasonable degree (at least there seems to be a decent amount of crossover), so the instincts aren't being _totally_ lost... but they're being shaped by the influence of sports too.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

There is the RSV-2000. Good or bad for some, but there is something.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

The SV system – if it were ever seriously applied here- can serve one very important purpose… that purpose is to make it impossible for puppy mills to register dogs as GSDs. In addition, it would likely weed out many BYBers who capitalize off of lax registry rules.

With that said, I do not think the SV system has done a good job in preserving the health of the breed itself. When I look at some dogs produced via the SV system in Germany, I come to the conclusion that this system has fallen prey to the same forces of money and ego that exists in other parts of the world. 

In many ways, people within the breed fancy world are their own worst enemy.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

That is why the RSV 2000 developed. But the support isn't there with the masses to continue. There is still hope! RSV2000 .:. Welcome to the RSV2000


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

LifeofRiley said:


> *The SV system – if it were ever seriously applied here- can serve one very important purpose… that purpose is to make it impossible for puppy mills to register dogs as GSDs. In addition, it would likely weed out many BYBers who capitalize off of lax registry rules.*
> 
> With that said, I do not think the SV system has done a good job in preserving the health of the breed itself. When I look at some dogs produced via the SV system in Germany, I come to the conclusion that this system has fallen prey to the same forces of money and ego that exists in other parts of the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

@ Jack's Dad - I totally agree that most people who purchase dogs aren't overly concerned with registering the dog. 

But, puppy mills, and a certain type of BYBer, are actually very concerned about being able to register their litters with the AKC because it gives them the veneer of credibility/quality they need to sell to buyers at the price they want.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> why does it matter what they look like?


Appearance is part of what makes a breed a breed.


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Appearance is *part* of what makes a breed a breed.


"Part" is the keyword in your statement. I will stand by my POV that there is too much show world obsession on appearance at the expense of health and temperament. 

I would think that most people would rather there be predictability/consistency in health and temperament. But, I could be wrong on that. My experience is based on what people looking to adopt ask about, not on what people looking to buy ask about. 

I'll leave that discussion to the breeders here.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

> I will stand by my POV that there is too much show world obsession on appearance at the expense of health and temperament.


What experience have you had with the show world? Have yoou bought from a show breeder (of either style). Have your friends?


----------



## LifeofRiley (Oct 20, 2011)

Andaka said:


> What experience have you had with the show world? Have yoou bought from a show breeder (of either style). Have your friends?


No, I am not part of the show world. 

But, I have always found that people can learn the most about the culture they are deeply enmeshed in if they make the effort to step outside of it for a while and take a close look from the outside back in. 

With that said, I am not trying to imply that all ASL and WGSL dogs have health and temperament problems. I am referring to systemic problems that impact health and temperament. I am sure that there are breeders out there doing a great job. Based on your reputation here, I have no doubt that your dogs are fantastic.

Gosh, people here are so defensive.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

@Life of Riley.....the crux of your statement I think is very correct......most people know it....some won't accept it because they have skin in the game. There are good breeders of all types, but the typical SL breeder places much more emphasis on looks than health or temperament. All you have to do is engage a SL person about assessing ANY dog and words like croup, shoulder, reach, not my type, etc become prominent in the conversation. This is NOT to disparage SL breeders, just to reflect that your conversation usually reflects your values and priorities and in that respect Carmen and Life of Riley make excellent points, IMO!


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=4740350801155

Another great video showing it's not just the GSD with issues.


----------

