# SchH Dominance GSD or Belgian Malinois?



## W.Oliver

On a somewhat pointless thread about Godzilla GSDs, we went off on a tangent about RSV2000. Mrs. K, with her front row seat in the motherland, made the observation below.




Mrs.K said:


> The Open German Championships were held last week. It wasn't all that great and I guess they know where they stand now. First nine ranks went to malinois and one German Shepherd ranked place 10 ... especially since the RSV2000 stirred up such a riot about competence and stuff like that a lot of people expected much much more.


Here is the link from the RSV2000 Member Bulletin for the trial results;
ADRK Bezirksgruppe Rottweil-Süd - Competers VDH

Interestesting to note not only the point about Belgian Malinois and that the 10th place was Dr. Helmut Raiser and his RSV2000 GSD....but also the highest placing SV GSD was 19th!

Allow me to offer some perspective on my view. I am a dog lover. I can find something to appreciate about any breed or line. Having said that, I am a GSD person to the bone, and more specifically, Working Lines, West German, DDR, or Czech are my preference. A facet of my passion for the GSD is the working heritage of the breed in Herding and the tradition Schutzhund has played in shaping the working dog.

I appreciate Belgian Malinois, but I have never owned one. I have caught SchH, SDA, KNPV, and French Ring Malinois, but never handled one. I have admired the mechanics of the Mal’s work, but never trained one.

I have been around SchH long enough to read the history and talk to more experienced trainers who discuss the evolution of SchH from breed test to competitive sport. I have also spent enough time around breeders and the discussion boards to be aware of the divergence in GSD lines.

So let me pose the following for discussion; 

Is the apparent dominance of Belgian Malinois in dog sport, due to changes in SchH itself, evolving from a breed test to validate the all-round character of GSDs, to a precision based sport?, or could it be attributed to insufficiencies in the GSD, associated with the divergent lines?, could the Mals simply be a superior breed?


----------



## Mrs.K

The exact same discussion was going on, on a german forum. 

I believe there is a lot that plays into the fact that German Shepherds stand behind Malinois. 

Many Schutzhund people in Germany still train their dogs the old way which just isn't what the judges want to see anymore. 

I was told that malinois are not only rough and tough but also handler sensitive and that you have to train them a total different way and re-think methods. They wouldn't learn any faster, weren't any easier but because of their sensitivity you can't just train them "the old way" and have to use a lot of positive reinforcement which is still a big no-go in a lot of German Shepherd Clubs over here. Some people flat out laugh at you if you pull out the clicker which is stupid but thats the way it is.. 

If you own a sensitive German Shepherd you've got a weak dog. A real shepherd is only a dog that nips at his handler, he's got to be rough and tough and you have to able to stomp a shovel on his head and he's still going straight forward. 

Unless people start to re-think their training methods, the club structures, stop corruption and judges that give points to dogs and handlers that don't deserve it, there will be no change within the Shepherd Szene and they will fall more and more behind the Malinois.


----------



## Jason L

A dog that can score high is not necessarily the same as a strong dog with heart and courage. Just my opinion ... so I'm inclined to with your first hypothesis, Wayne.



Mrs.K said:


> A real shepherd is only a dog that nips at his handler, he's got to be rough and tough and you have to able to stomp a shovel on his head and he's still going straight forward.


I can do without the nipping but, yes, a GSD that is rough and tough and can take a whack of a shovel to his head and keep going straight forward ...I'll take him! It doesn't mean you can't clicker train that dog - but at some point in his training life you are going to have to put a some pressure on the dog and I want a dog that can power through it.


----------



## Mrs.K

Jason, that is the point. Most of these people don't believe in clicker-training or positive re-inforcement. 

When I look at this forum and the other german board I believe that in the US people are way ahead of us Germans because over here they try to stick to the tradition and don't go with the time. 

I agree, having a rough and tough dog doesn't mean you can clicker train him and sometimes you have to use pressure. There is always a point where you have to be consequent and use pressure but you have to know when, how and what kind of pressure.


----------



## W.Oliver

One of the aspects I value about a GSD is the characteristic of being an "all-around" dog. You know the old saying, "not the best and anything, but second best at everything".

Although I have had the crap knocked out of me by Mals while serving as a Helper/Decoy, I do not believe this translates to any depth of understanding about the breed, but having said that, my impression is that they are not the "all-around" dog the GSD is. When off the field, the Mals I have been around are wired, cagey, almost anxious.

Am I off base here?


----------



## JKlatsky

I think that it's about Flash in the work. And I think you can generally agree that a higher strung dog is flashier in a routine. Most of the Mals I have seen have more nervous energy (and not necessarily to say that they are nervous/anxious, but rather that they always seem to be in that state of heightened alert with the adrenaline flowing) and that energy when channeled gives a very flashy performance. And Mals also seem to be more reactive with faster reflexes. Face it...most GSDs look slow next to the Mals. 

In an effort to compete with this, I think you are seeing more GSDs with Malinois like characteristics. More energy, more drive, so that in training you can get more Flash. They also seem to be more handler soft. I always think of these dogs as "The Modern Working Shepherd". But of course with this there are drawbacks. Like Ms. K said...these dogs do not hold up to the older style of training. You cannot beat these dogs up without ruining them. I think your traditionalists would consider them weak. Although I think part of the success of these dogs is also because they are easier in some ways for new people from other dog backgrounds to feel successful with. Most people in the US do not have the stomach for the older style of training (where you see the more traditional tough as nails working shepherd succeeding perhaps in spite of the heavy handedness). Their dogs are their pets. They don't want to see them yelp, or cry, or feel sad in training. If all the behaviors can be reliably shaped with clickers and treats they're happier. 

I find it interesting when you look at judges- what certain ones like, don;t like etc. Old German judges that I've seen like a different kind of dog than a newer American judge. I can think of one judge who will sort of gloss over temperament as long as the obedience is there because he'd rather see a tough aggressive dog than a pet who loves everyone. Another judge I can think of will pass a BH with moderate obedience as long as the dog shows good temperament in a fairly extensive traffic portion. I think that reflects values on the dogs. 

You see it in horses too. How many people go to the races and bet on the horse that's dancing all over the place because it looks fast, or the show jumpers or dressage horses that look on the edge of control. I think there is something in human nature that applauds the human race "mastering" and channeling something that appears wild.

I think these trials are less trials and more performances. Who doesn't want to be entertained?


----------



## Sarah'sSita

IMO - the tests in schutzhund have changed the sport andd the relevance as assessing breedability. Now the emphasis may be on GSD to be more "sporty" and the points aren't as much based on power and temperament of the dog. This made room for the Malinois to take the lead with its "correctness". I may see all the correct obeidence in a Mali, but the total power and correct temperament for an all-purpose working dog will always be the GSD. SchH still needs to be a part of the selection process, but who the dog truly is - seeing it be trainined and worked is needed for a wise selection for breeding. Judging has changed to on so many ways and training also has evolved. But to my core I am a GSD gal and not a mali gal.

Funny to mention about the "old style " training and how this part of the world may be more evolved. Last winter I went to a seminar given by a very succeesful traininer in SchH - he laments that there are no good old-school German traininers here any more. He can't stand clicker training. However after watching him work a few dogs in OB, he is using marker training but just not calling it that!


----------



## Vandal

While I was typing this a couple of posts came up saying something similar but I am too lazy to edit.

They are two distinctly different breeds but the problem is now, working GSD people want GSDs to act like that different breed. It would be better if they just got a Mal. I know a number of people who have switched from GSDs to Mals. The Mals fit them better and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I appreciate they switched, instead of trying to make the GSD into something he /she is not supposed to be. People need to get used to/understand seeing what a GSD is supposed to work like. Huge numbers of people can watch SchH protection or obedience and simply miss the forest while they are watching the tree. I think the big attraction to Mals started in the obedience portion of SchH. Mals are simply flashier/quicker dogs due to the design of their nervous system. GSDs were never intended to be like Mals in that regard and when you have people trying to breed that into the GSD, what you get are those dogs who nip at their handlers. It doesn't quite work out for German Shepherds when you try to breed in that nervous energy . The GSD was intended to be balanced, not frantic and so prey driven they will run off a cliff to get a tug etc.

The way Mals hit in protection is also associated with the nerves, in some of them. I have worked a few who were more GSD- like but there is still that somewhat frantic desire in those dogs to get to the sleeve. It is not at all like what a good GSD does. The best GSD will sort of size up the helper as they come to the bite and they make adjustments accordingly. They will escalate based on the level of threat. Mostly, the Mals all seem to come at the same speed and are more often than not, simply flinging themselves at the helper. They are more on full blast vs escalating to the threat.
I have seen more than a few who have flown off the sleeve on the long bite. Makes for spectacular video and most will say that happens because the dog is coming so fast. Well, yes, part of that is true but the other part, IMO, has to do with their nerves and that frantic behavior. I talked about a Mal I worked a while back who had flown off the sleeve a few times in trials. We put him on the pole and I worked him with some pressure coming at him yelling and moving the whip. What became immediately apparent was the dog's lack of focus. The dog was attracted by everything that was moving on my body. You can attribute that to the very high prey instinct but also a bit to the nerves because focus requires stronger nerves. This dog was distracted by all the movement, that is nerves. I made some adjustments and it wasn't long before the dog focused strictly on the sleeve but it needed to be taught to the dog, it was not natural. That kind of work is something I think lots of Mals would benefit from but IMO, is not work that is as necessary , ( even though I will do it with GSDs), when you train a GSD. That is because of the differences in the two breeds. Although there will always be the excuse meisters in both breeds, most of the Mal people I know seem to be much more willing to admit who their breed is vs GSD people who are always making excuses. They are just dogs and you have to be able to accept who each dog is in order to work it right. That part alone could be a big reason they do better in trials, their trainers understand what is at the end of the leash. When you understand that part and have the training knowledge to go along with it, it is very easy to teach these dogs to do things the right way. They are very fast learners and easy to reach so, it is easier to install behaviors. 

GSDs should not be so quick to react as Mals are. They are a thinking breed so, when you have a "real" GSD, you and your helper have to possess a different skill set. Mostly, it was always a case where GSDs needed a reason to bite. They would size things up before they acted. This type of dog required a helper who could give the dog that reason but when the training started to become all about prey drive, half of who the GSD was supposed to be,( the protective instincts/aggression), started to lose value to many people who were training them. They wanted the ease of working with the more easy to stimulate dogs like Mals and the prey drive that matched the methods. IMO, a big reason the GSD is suffering is because people want them to be Mals and the Mals are excelling because the people who train those dogs, like the traits that breed displays and are not out there wishing for something else or trying to work them in ways that don't fit who the dog is.


----------



## Mrs.K

Did you guys know that Raiser even thought of crossing Mals with GSD's to better the German Shepherd and that it was a huge debate and that it was one of the reasons why he split from the SV in the first place?


----------



## lhczth

I remember reading what he wrote and he talked about bringing in Mals for health reasons. Not to make the GSD more like a Mal.


----------



## Mrs.K

lhczth said:


> I remember reading what he wrote and he talked about bringing in Mals for health reasons. Not to make the GSD more like a Mal.


That is why I said to better the German Shepherd, however, it is the wrong way to go. I don't want to have a cross of the two and with that I highly disagree.


----------



## W.Oliver

Vandal said:


> GSDs should not be so quick to react as Mals are. They are a thinking breed so, when you have a "real" GSD, you and your helper have to possess a different skill set. Mostly, it was always a case where GSDs needed a reason to bite. They would size things up before they acted. This type of dog required a helper who could give the dog that reason but when the training started to become all about prey drive, half of who the GSD was supposed to be,( the protective instincts/aggression), started to lose value to many people who were training them. They wanted the ease of working with the more easy to stimulate dogs like Mals and the prey drive that matched the methods. IMO, a big reason the GSD is suffering is because people want them to be Mals and the Mals are excelling because the people who train those dogs, like the traits that breed displays and are not out there wishing for something else or trying to work them in ways that don't fit who the dog is.


What I take away from this as a Helper is the value in a dog that is balanced and has defense to draw from rather than simply working in prey drive. Where the Helper has to bring more to the field than simply moving like a rabbit, but also have presence, threaten the dog and drive a reason for aggression.


----------



## Vandal

Just to be clear, I am not saying you just run around like a chicken when you work a Malinois . I am just saying, you need some different skills to work a GSD, particularly with dogs that are bred to be what a GSD was intended to be. My main point is that people nowadays, want GSDs to act like Mals and they look to methods that work best with Mals to train their GSDs. I think they would be more successful in trials if they worked harder at bringing out the German Shepherd in their dogs thru training vs trying to bring out the traits that make them look more like Malinois. Think about who people are going to for seminars and training videos. Mal trainers. They talk about teaching "the game" but in my opinion, that is training that is more geared to Mals than German Shepherds. The GSDs with stronger nerves and protective instincts don't usually respond as well to work like that. A little off topic but...... these are the dogs that the breed needs nowadays. There are enough dogs available to add drive but not many who can add what I just talked about. There are even fewer people who understand the importance of those traits in a GSD and can work the dogs in a way to puts those traits on display. 
When you don't tap into what makes a German Shepherd , a German Shepherd, the dogs look like lesser dogs and are not as impressive in trials. Everyone has seen the kind of dog I am talking about, either in person or on video. The dogs with that power, composure and aggression that a Malinois does not have. Sure, some people can use training more suited to Mals and be successful, but that is with a certain kind of GSD and even those dogs, still can't be a Malinois. The GSD side is diminished through training/breeding methods as well and as a result, they do not do as well. That is just my take on one aspect of the problem. Certainly, there are judges who are and have been contributing to it also. 
I recall an interview with Helmut where he talked about having to have a prey driven GSD to do well in trials and in the BSP . Someone told me Fritz Biehler said the same thing. For me, these two men let down the breed by promoting/moving to these types of dogs so they could win. The trial was the problem, not the dogs and both certainly had the experience to realize that but chose to go along with it.


----------



## Chris Wild

Mrs.K said:


> Did you guys know that Raiser even thought of crossing Mals with GSD's to better the German Shepherd and that it was a huge debate and that it was one of the reasons why he split from the SV in the first place?


He wasn't serious about that. He said it for shock value to try to get people to realize how far the GSD has fallen. There is no intention to cross in Mals and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of RSV2000.



Vandal said:


> I recall an interview with Helmut where he talked about having to have a prey driven GSD to do well in trials and in the BSP .


Had a conversation with him about that topic a couple years ago. One thing he said which really harkens to what you're talking about, Anne, was "At home I have two dogs I work: My dogsport dog and my German Shepherd". Both of course are GSDs by pedigree, but I thought it quite an interesting statement to describe the 2 in that manner.


----------



## Samba

Ha! Good to hear Helmut is in the same position I am in... a house full of dogs..... my dog for showing in shows, my dog for sport, ... and my German Shepherd. I feel in good company in a strange situation.


----------



## Vandal

I might substitute the word "interesting" with another adjective. I don't have a lot of respect for his thinking on the matter. See, it is not just the show people selling it all down the drain. In fact, the irony of all of it is, the methods Helmut, (and before him, Bernhard Mannel), introduced, have had a significant impact on the breed and not in a positive way. True, the dogs were different back when these ideas were presented and I am pretty certain no one realized how bad it would get through extending those ideas to the completely absurd levels we see now but no matter the intentions, it has still turned out to be the road to you know where. Not all of it, but enough where there has been a rather significant change in the dogs. Most people now will never experience dogs like the ones I am talking about and many probably would not want to. They are that much different than what the norm is now. Like SchH used to be, they were not something for every Tom, **** and Harry. That is also the problem, the selling of SchH to the general public and the idea that everyone should be doing it. It simply is not a sport for just anyone and in making it that, the test it used to provide, is just about gone.


----------



## Sarah'sSita

Vandal said:


> Think about who people are going to for seminars and training videos. Mal trainers. They talk about teaching "the game" but in my opinion, that is training that is more geared to Mals than German Shepherds. The GSDs with stronger nerves and protective instincts don't usually respond as well to work like that.


 
Can you clarify this? Is there a different way of playing tug or use of a toy as a reward for a GSD? How does a person know if "the game" type of playing is not an effective tool? How do use a toy for the GSD

I know this is way off topic but I want to know...do you have a video of yourself working your GSDs with a toy? 

Too bad that SchH has slipped as an effective tool. I would also guess that just because a dog wins the GSD doesn't automatically mean its breedworthy.


----------



## Vandal

The point would not be made better with a video but to answer one of your questions, you would know it wasn't effective by the way your dog responds . I believe when a method works with a dog, it works rather quickly. So, if you are there doing the same thing over and over, waiting to see something special, for me, it is not effective. If the dog doesn't put his heart into it, it is not effective . While we are talking about obedience, that last remark for sure applies in protection. GSDs seem to function better when the training reaches inside the dog, when there is some challenge or pressure vs just kind of working them on the surface. You can see the dog's heart when you watch the really good ones work. To me, the game kind of training is beneath a German Shepherd, as is simply training them to play in protection. I know and can feel the difference in the two breeds when I work them as the helper. I can see the response to pressure in their eyes and it is a very different look in those eyes and faces, especially when they think you might be a little dangerous. Most people will never have the view I have had, so, I don't expect people to completely understand what I am saying. It is a bit frustrating trying to explain some of this because it is something you see when you work the dogs and not something that is very easy to put in words. I sure do not expect everyone to agree with my take on things but that is how I will always view the breed. 

At the moment I can't come up with a better way to explain the rest of what I meant. Maybe my post just needs to be read a couple of times before you will get what I mean. It was a little long but I thought I explained it pretty well.


----------



## Samba

Is it what is "behind" the biting? It is a generalization, I know, but it seems to me that many Mals are very high in prey and also many of them seem to like to bite for bitings sake. Oh yeah, bite drive, that's it! For a German Shepherd it seems there must be a cause to bite and when the dog "understands" a real reason it brings an "internal" power to the situation. If it is in the dog and you get to see it ....it is convincing.


----------



## sagelfn

W.Oliver said:


> could the Mals simply be a superior breed?


*Blasphemy!!* :tongue:

Great discussion you guys :thumbup:


----------



## W.Oliver

W.Oliver said:


> What I take away from this as a Helper is the value in a dog that is balanced and has defense to draw from rather than simply working in prey drive. Where the Helper has to bring more to the field than simply moving like a rabbit, but also have presence, threaten the dog and drive a reason for aggression.





Vandal said:


> Just to be clear, I am not saying you just run around like a chicken when you work a Malinois .


Agreed, nor did I reference Mals....I was simply recognizing your point regarding "a dog" working only in prey drive vs. a balanced dog with aggression to draw from.


----------



## W.Oliver

Vandal said:


> Think about who people are going to for seminars and training videos. Mal trainers. They talk about teaching "the game" but in my opinion, that is training that is more geared to Mals than German Shepherds. The GSDs with stronger nerves and protective instincts don't usually respond as well to work like that.


As a guy who has watched those videos, and attended those seminars, that makes sense to me.

I have often asked myself why this well known trainer or that trainer works Mals, and didn't get to wrapped around the axle about it because I am a blissfully ignorant novice...this is why I need to stop talking to you, Lisa & Chris, all three of you screw-up my reality.

The German Shepherd breed has changed, SchH has changed, methods of training have changed, and all of this is expressed as the rise in popularity of the Belgian Malinois. Max is rolling over in his grave.

I remain a GSD man to the bone, and only hope the pockets of real GSDs persit into the future with breeders like the three of you.

Having said all that, I still plan to fly my real GSD named Itzakat to the West coast to study with one of those Mal guys to see what he knows....maybe I will take a trip to Saugus while I am out there!


----------



## jmdjack

Hi Anne, first I would like to thank you for your contributions to this forum. I always look forward to your posts. I understand what you are saying with respect to the difference between GSDs and Mals in protection and the need to approach this training differently. What I am unclear about is how the differences between the breeds affect (or should affect) obedience training. I find this very intriguing because, for those of us who (attempt to) train our GSDs for the most part on our own, most of what is currently out there for public consumption is from Mal trainers. To grossly generalize, the training seems heavily based upon markers, using toys and play as a reward. Understanding that every dog is different, generally what difference approaches do you suggest in training the GSD in obedience as opposed to a Mal? To throw out a few examples to help illustrate my question: More praise as a reward? The introduction of more physical placement, praise, and correction (read "compulsion" although I do not like using that word because people interpret it differently)? Or is it something as simple as not expecting the GSD to act in the same manner when presented with a reward? I don't mean to single Anne out; I would appreciate the comments of anyone who has some insight into this issue. Thanks.


----------



## Ruthie

Vandal said:


> ...Most people now will never experience dogs like the ones I am talking about and many probably would not want to. They are that much different than what the norm is now. Like SchH used to be, they were not something for every Tom, **** and Harry. That is also the problem, the selling of SchH to the general public and the idea that everyone should be doing it. It simply is not a sport for just anyone and in making it that, the test it used to provide, is just about gone.


I am just curious about this statement. I don't understand what you are getting at. So, who should own this kind of dog? Who should be doing SchH?


----------



## Vandal

I should have said SchH WAS not a sport for everyone. Now anyone can do it. 
I am saying that SchH is more like Agility now. It is much more about toys and playing games. Large numbers of dogs are no longer really doing protection, even though Schutzhund still translates to mean protection dog. I said some years back when they removed the Police trials from the BSP and replaced it with Agility, the mentality would start to shift and I was right. Used to be SchH dogs were quite suited for Police work, not anymore. Now SchH is explained as just a game where the dog wants to get his prize, he isn't really biting anyone. That is a far cry from what it was when I first started and no, it was not a sport for everyone. Now it is packaged in a way that is more appealing to people who might also be attracted to Agility. That's not an insult to agility trainers but it does say quite a bit about what SchH is now , compared to then. As for the dogs, they were not expected to be social butterflies as they are now. It was normal to see a dog who was not interested in interacting with strangers or who were protective of their handler. Now , often times, these types of dogs are considered unsuitable for SchH because they don't want to "play" with the helper or chase a rag on a "flirt pole" . The training was not quite as nice, not quite as stylized and no one was telling people the dogs wouldn't bite for real, because they would. LOL. I don't know many SchH people now who want a dog like that or could handle one.


----------



## W.Oliver

What you characterized about SchH today, is exactly why I have been interested in SDA and the suit work. I respect what the SDA folks are working to accomplish in the vein of "real dogs", I just wish they could get their organizational  together. I am not suggesting SDA in place of SchH, but ideally for me, SDA would be in additon too SchH.

Funny thing is, there are alot of Dutchies, and Mals in the SDA crowd....so given the context of our discussion, and the SDA training philosophy, it leaves me scratching my head a bit???? None the less, they are focused on cultivating real dogs, not sport dogs, and I respect that.


----------



## Jason L

Vandal said:


> The training was not quite as nice, not quite as stylized and no one was telling people the dogs wouldn't bite for real, because they would. LOL. I don't know many SchH people now who want a dog like that or could handle one.


Anne, since these were really tough dogs, dogs that people may not want or could handle today, would you say training was also a lot rougher then? I was talking to someone at our club this weekend and he told me there was no such thing as clicker retrieve when he first got started. He just assumed everyone put a forced retrieve on the dog when the dog was old enough and the dogs that couldn't handle it wouldn't be dogs that would last long with in the training program anyway. It seemed like the two re-enforced each other. The training was tough, so only the strong dogs survived, thrived and were bred. And in order to train these dogs, training itself needs to be tough.


----------



## Jason L

W.Oliver said:


> What you characterized about SchH today, is exactly why I have been interested in SDA and the suit work. I respect what the SDA folks are working to accomplish in the vein of "real dogs", I just wish they could get their organizational  together. I am not suggesting SDA in place of SchH, but ideally for me, SDA would be in additon too SchH.
> 
> Funny thing is, there are alot of Dutchies, and Mals in the SDA crowd....so given the context of our discussion, and the SDA training philosophy, it leaves me scratching my head a bit???? None the less, they are focused on cultivating real dogs, not sport dogs, and I respect that.


Wayne, I have been thinking about this topic of suit vs sleeve. My (newbie) hypothesis is the suit is only "telling" if the dog has not been trained to bite the suit. That is, you put a dog that is a suit-virgin on the suit and challenge him, then how he bites, where he bites, does he even bite at all - all of that will tell you something about the dog. But a dog that has been taught to bite on the suit from 6 months on (first the outside arm, then inside arm, then side of the leg, then back of the leg, then shoulder, then back, etc. etc.) - well, those dogs are no more real, no more "man aggressive" than a schutzhund dog biting a sleeve.


----------



## Samba

I was seeing some instruction on SchH one day and the point being made was that the protection part was a competition between the dog and the helper for the sleeve/toy. Toy play as a foundation for this was emphasized. The young dogs were seeped in this "play". It grew to be rougher play and competition along the way, but it was still based in this prey object primarily. It did seem to be all about a game. I guess points in the SchH routine could be gained fairly well with this approach! 

I don't see as much pressure now on the dogs in obedience myself. Perhaps that is an issue? When testing dogs for breed-worthiness, wouldn't it be useful to know how that dog withstood pressure in that context? Wouldn't it be useful to know how willing that dog was to work for the handler rather than for food or prey drive satisfaction? When doing herding with my dogs they have to be able to withstand pressure from me in "obedience" and bounce right back. The sheep is not going to immediately reward that dog with something and neither am I going to be able to do much other than "good dog". The dog is going to have to withstand some pressure and also have a huge desire to work with the human part of the team. 

Markers and reward seem really useful to teach complex behaviors, but it is not the whole of obedience surely. Dogs that I have really enjoyed worked for the handler in a very primary way and actually got better with pressure in obedience. They had a resiliency and a desire to please. 

Perhaps others will speak to their take on it. 

I am relatively new to SchH and not experienced. But, I can remember seeing really good dogs some years ago. No one wanted to "play" with those dogs on the field. In fact, looking back on it, it seems ludicrous to think about approaching those dogs that way! They were great dogs, could have done police work and were quite serious. I don't think they would get so many points now in competition. I do recall people starting to talk about "point" dogs then.


----------



## W.Oliver

Jason L said:


> Wayne, I have been thinking about this topic of suit vs sleeve. My (newbie) hypothesis is the suit is only "telling" if the dog has not been trained to bite the suit. That is, you put a dog that is a suit-virgin on the suit and challenge him, then how he bites, where he bites, does he even bite at all - all of that will tell you something about the dog. But a dog that has been taught to bite on the suit from 6 months on (first the outside arm, then inside arm, then side of the leg, then back of the leg, then shoulder, then back, etc. etc.) - well, those dogs are no more real, no more "man aggressive" than a schutzhund dog biting a sleeve.


Under that scenario, I agree, but that is not how I would employ the suit. I would utilize the suit much later in training after the dog has matured.

Key for me with Itzakat, is being congnisant of drive development, and avoiding the cultivation of a prey drive only dog. Raven, my puppy mama, is a dog like we are talking about. Calm, solid nerve, and a wonderful balance in her drives....I want that for my puppy.


----------



## Jason L

But for most bitesuit sports, that would be how they approach it, don't you think? People love to talk about the suit dogs on youtube doing high shoulder/back bites but it's a taught behavior just like anything else. The same applies to hidden sleeve, another place where lots of people like to woo and ahh about how real the dogs are. In PSA there is a carjack scenario with hidden sleeve - which looks nice until you realized how ritualized the whole thing is, how they go about training it, how they cue the dog to expect this and that and do x, y, z on command. To me, that is just as stylized as hold and bark in the blind ... maybe even more so.


----------



## Vandal

I am hiring Samba as my ghostwriter because, once again, she seems to know what I am talking about. In obedience now, there are traits in a GSD that are not being utilized by today's training methods. The good dogs deal with the pressure exceptionally well, not only from the helper but from the handler. In fact, it makes them better. That is what I meant when I was staying on topic and discussing working a GSD like a GSD and not like a Mal. I can't believe people are thinking their German Shepherd is just like a Malinois and I would hope he isn't. So, if he is a GSD, I am simply suggesting that people train him like one and the results would be better in a trial.
There is that natural willingness and intelligence that a GSD has that should play a part in his training. Some of these other methods simply ignore those qualities in order to utilize the prey instinct .Those other traits are what sets a German Shepherd apart from other breeds but like I said earlier, they are no longer valued or brought out through the training. Some think they are training the dog's natural obedience instincts when they just wave toys and cookies at the dog but I think there is so much more left untouched. Those things, for me anyway, are very important in a German Shepherd. That is because they are used in the many venues a GSD was supposed to be capable of working in and where training mainly with the prey instinct would not be appropriate. Think seeing eye dog for example. This is what I mean when I say some of these methods are "beneath" a GSD. The GSD is so much more than that.


----------



## W.Oliver

Jason L said:


> But for most bitesuit sports, that would be how they approach it, don't you think? People love to talk about the suit dogs on youtube doing high shoulder/back bites but it's a taught behavior just like anything else. The same applies to hidden sleeve, another place where lots of people like to woo and ahh about how real the dogs are. In PSA there is a carjack scenario with hidden sleeve - which looks nice until you realized how ritualized the whole thing is, how they go about training it, how they cue the dog to expect this and that and do x, y, z on command. To me, that is just as stylized as hold and bark in the blind ... maybe even more so.


I think your right with respect to learned behavior and a sport approach regardless if it is a sleeve or suit, (someone like Cliff could certainly jump in and help us out here). In my humble view, what is important to me, is behind the physical, a "real" dog is motivated by the fight, and a sport dog is motivated by prey.....and I believe that is basically what Anne is describing. There are "real" SchH dogs, and I think working them in a suit simply offers another tool to pressure a mature dog and cultivate fight or aggression...vis a' vis the "real" dog. That is where my head is at, does that make sense?


----------



## Jason L

Yes and I agree with that!


----------



## W.Oliver

Vandal said:


> I can't believe people are thinking their German Shepherd is just like a Malinois and I would hope he isn't.


Please help me connect the dots on obedience with very young dogs. Is it your point that the biddable GSD should receive verbal/physical praise for correct behaviors and therefore work to please the handler vs. working for a tangible reward like food or toy?


----------



## Vandal

There are things you can see when you work a dog on a suit. I prefer, as was already stated, that the dog goes high on the body. I don't think you can actually train that if the dog is not willing to go there. They would always revert to what their genetics tell them to do. It is interesting to note that the good herding dogs will go to a similar place on a sheep when they are trying to control them. They go high on the back of the neck and bite full and hard with power and will escalate based on what the sheep or an angry Ram is doing. That goes back to what I said in my other posts about how a GSD escalates based on the level of threat, or fight etc. These are genetic behaviors that are distinctly "German Shepherd" and you will see them even when the dogs are working in what may seem to be, very different situations.


----------



## Vandal

> Please help me connect the dots on obedience with very young dogs. Is it your point that the biddable GSD should receive verbal/physical praise for correct behaviors and therefore work to please the handler vs. working for a tangible reward like food or toy?


 


I am saying that some work BETTER when you train that way. If they are that kind of dog and you are still there trying to work using the prey instinct, the response will not be as good. Which leads us back to the topic about doing better in trials. Mal people work their dogs like Mals and, it seems, GSD people try to work theirs like Mals. 

As far as young dogs, you have to also understand what a dog is mature enough to deal with. I will work small pups with food and the clicker because there is nothing else I can do that would be appropriate for an 8 week old puppy. Edited to add: BUT, that 8 week old puppy has to show the apptitude for that training. If he doesn't, I will wait and work him another way.


----------



## Samba

Of course it is genetic. I feel like saying, "doh". So often I forget how much of a dogs behaviors are that, and then I get reminded! When my bitch would hit high, hold and power down a belligerent sheep, I had no problem recognizing that as genetic. The first time in such a situation the response was very automatic, instinctive.

In a "fight" , I fail to recognize it as that, though! Something about protection work destroys my brain! When my young dog first was "threatened" by someone, he responded immediately with a bit of a roar. When allowed to go, he hit the person high on the back and shoulder, took them down to the ground and held them there. Now in that situation, I didn't think about the "genetics" of the behavior though it was untrained and never performed before. It did not occur to me until Anne mentioned it and then its like...(head slap).

I tend to get so caught up in training dogs to perform or do certain things in a particular manner. I guess in reality, with a correct one, you mostly have to provide the correct "picture" to elicit what is inherently there. I guess a lot of work these days may not tap what is there or reveal what is not.

And darn that about the foody and the tuggy tug in obedience. If you don't have that sort of dog, you are stymied for a bit while others jump through hoops as youngsters for that stuff! But, it doesn't take that long to catch up once there is some maturity in the other type of dog.


----------



## cliffson1

I guess I will weigh in, Thanks for the invite W Oliver. First, let me say that I agree so much with Anne's statement that Sch isn't for everyone, though Sch should be something the German Shepherd is at home with. Today's Sch is no more than choreographed routines in most cases. The dog no longer thinks in protection work but merely does what it is trained.(Most people will miss that but there is a difference, IMO)
Just got back from SDA trial in Tennessee last week, and on the way back to NJ the three of us were talking about how we felt that SDA is closer to "old Sch" in testing a dog than the Sch of today. We had a very talented decoy from PSA training, and beleive me he could put dogs into avoidance with his approach on them with no contact. When he caught a dog on suit sleeve, he drove the dog for real!! Many routine Sch dogs would have had problems with this because it was intense, but it reminded me of the work we did before Sch changed. Some dogs reacted to this with strength and a will to "not" be dominated. Many didnot.
My point is this type of work really allowed you to see the type of dog to be used for breeding to maintain courage, character, and nerve. Of course when you have this type of decoy work, I focus on the dogs ability to "out" and remain strong. Some dogs "found comfort in the sleeve" and were very reluctant to out. All in all I think that Sch has changed and training methods have changed and scoring by judges have changed, and when you add these changed components up, then the result is that the German Shepherd has changed......and not for the better, JMHO.


----------



## Vandal

> I guess in reality, with a correct one, you mostly have to provide the correct "picture" to elicit what is inherently there.


Not only have I hired Samba, now I have to give her a raise. lol. EXACTLY, that is what I am saying. More people now will keep trying to train a behavior into the dog even when the dog already offers the behavior naturally.


----------



## lhczth

Not all rewards have to be some type of object that the dog wins (toy or food). Sometimes the reward is just the interaction with the handler. Many of the older style dogs did not have this crazy drive for toys. Most people do not understand how to work these dogs anymore. They all want to work their dogs like prey/toy crazy Mals. 

A friend of mine has a male that could care less about a ball. Chasing toys isn't his thing. What he loves is a good fight with mom on a tug and she had to show him that this was a way to interact and have fun with mom. She will have to learn to use this in training Vs. the ball like she used with her toy crazy dog. My first GSD learned to play ball because it was a way to play and interact with me. She would have been considered low drive by most modern standards, but she would work all day and do anything I asked. She was taught with the old jerk and praise methods, but had the flashiest obedience on the same par as what we see now in SchH competition. Now-a-days she would have been placed as a pet as unsuitable because she didn't fit with the current methods of training. 

My spell check sure wants to make Mals into Malls.


----------



## W.Oliver

W.Oliver said:


> The German Shepherd breed has changed, SchH has changed, methods of training have changed, and all of this is expressed as the rise in popularity of the Belgian Malinois. Max is rolling over in his grave.





cliffson1 said:


> All in all I think that Sch has changed and training methods have changed and scoring by judges have changed, and when you add these changed components up, then the result is that the German Shepherd has changed......and not for the better, JMHO.


So there is the problem recognition, but what is the solution? 

Break SchH into two branches? I.) Sport SchH, and II.) Real SchH? Or does the SDA organization mature and grow and start to fill that gap on a broader national stage? 

What about the breeders who supply "real" GSDs....seems you folks are an endangered species, and many of you are as old as dirt, so who backfills that space when you're lookin' down (or lookin' up as the case may be) watching the last of the "real" GSDs fade away?

Seems like the GSD I want to know is only left in isolated pockets of dedication. Is there a future in that, or eventually will there only be show line GSDs and Mals to choose from?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

lhczth said:


> Not all rewards have to be some type of object that the dog wins (toy or food). Sometimes the reward is just the interaction with the handler. Many of the older style dogs did not have this crazy drive for toys. Most people do not understand how to work these dogs anymore. They all want to work their dogs like prey/toy crazy Mals.
> 
> A friend of mine has a male that could care less about a ball. Chasing toys isn't his thing. What he loves is a good fight with mom on a tug and she had to show him that this was a way to interact and have fun with mom. She will have to learn to use this in training Vs. the ball like she used with her toy crazy dog. My first GSD learned to play ball because it was a way to play and interact with me. She would have been considered low drive by most modern standards, but she would work all day and do anything I asked. She was taught with the old jerk and praise methods, but had the flashiest obedience on the same par as what we see now in SchH competition. Now-a-days she would have been placed as a pet as unsuitable because she didn't fit with the current methods of training.
> 
> My spell check sure wants to make Mals into Malls.


I LOVE this kind of thinking, partner-ish kind of dog. A scholar athlete!


----------



## Vandal

Adding to what Carla/Samba said about presenting the right picture which results in the correct behavior from the dog. People may have heard me talk about working dogs in SchH with people who have only kind of played with their dog. I talked about going to clubs where the people would tell me their dogs were biting the sleeve only to work them and feel/see something completely different. When I work a dog, I present a certain attitude or picture to the dog. When I do that, these dogs who have only played before,( if they are good dogs), suddenly look like totally different animals. What I am doing brings out that German Shepherd in them and suddenly these dogs are really putting their heart into the work and their owners are there kind of stunned. I am not talking about making the dog nasty or too crazy with too much defense, I am talking about simply showing them someone who means business. It is much more a mental thing than it is physical. It has nothing to do with the equipment used either. It is about me and the dog. Not many have this ability and it did take me quite a while to master it. I learned it because of what I saw other very good trainers from years ago doing. One of them was Helmut Koinig. I took my dog to a seminar with him, ( and this was a good dog, not weak at all), and when Helmut walked up and just stood in front of my dog, my dog went around behind me. He came back out but he was disturbed by Helmut and it was not an accident . Helmut knew what he was doing. What he did was reach into my dog with his presence and after that, my dog was working at a different level. He touched the German Shepherd in my dog , brought it out and then worked with it. That experience left a big impression on me but almost all the other people watching seemed to miss the significance of it. I can now do that to a dog by just looking at them. I can reach in and bring out that power and work with it. I watch others try but they don't have that mental ability, or they are SO hard on the dog that they bring it up and then immediately extinguish it by overpowering the dog. I think what I just said in that last sentence is what many people have seen and is why they have moved away from work that involves pressure. Just like compulsion, they have seen it done wrong. This is a case of subtleties and a good analogy would be the difference between what you see when someone tries to ride a horse without knowing how vs someone skilled at dressage. The unskilled rider always is doing too much while you can not even see what the dressage rider is doing.
Also, when you present this picture, like what Samba said, everything seems to work. The dog does everything "right" because those natural instincts that SchH was designed to display come out. When the dog is at the right level, everything works and I have said that before when I am talking about drive. There is a perfect drive level and with the really good GSDs, you have to kind of go in and get it and sometimes that is true in obedience as well. Once you do that, everything about the training is easier.


----------



## Samba

It's the old Jedi mind trick! Upon description, it does sound a bit spooky. Certainly, I can't do it so there is no way for me to describe it or further elaborate on the skill! 

It is as Anne describes though. If your dog has not been worked in such a way, and then you see it, you can be a bit taken aback. Huh!? Didn't know I had THAT dog! 

The darn thing about it is you can't really teach it as it is not so much about physical moves, though those do play into the actual work. Maybe acting is the closest comparison? It can be learned to a degree but some people are more natural at it than others. 

I have also seen this with Gene E. Haven't spent any extended time with his training, but he has that ability. He would walk out from behind a door and the dog would sit there having a nice day. Then he would go back, re-emerge and the dog would transform. There was not a bunch of posturing or movement. I asked and he told me "the dog knows what I was thinking and you don't want to". Loved that answer!

I have tried to work a dog on occasion. I didn't do a horrible job, but still not great. When we took the dog to a better helper he wanted to know if the fairy godmother had been working the dog! Okay, cracked me up but that is how it was. Not so much "it" with me! Too little presented to the dog can be detrimental as well as the overpowering too much.


----------



## Ruthie

*Some thoughts*

I want to comment on three different aspects of this conversation.


*The discussion of training methods in obedience*- I won’t quote all the relevant comments, if you have read the thread, you will know what I am talking about. It seams to me that the training methods are not the issue here. It is the fundamental approach and philosophy to training. For me, training has always been about communication. The purpose of obedience, beyond the practical, being the test of the relationship between dog and handler, the poetic melding of the canine desire to please and the handler’s human desire to be understood by another being. Training methods are no more than a tool to this communication. Where we err as handlers is when we make the method god over the relationship and the communication. Like Anne mentioned, why do we need to train our dogs to do something that they do naturally. I am becoming keenly aware of this as a new handler. I am so much in the learning mode of handling techniques that I sometimes loose sight of the purpose. Two recent instances come to mind. First, being the whole tug thing. Bison works great for me in obedience as long as he holds the tug. The reward being the interacting with me, but as I tried to wean him off from carrying the tug around the field it became a struggle and created tension between us. There was no longer the awesome bond that we have, but a fight for possession. Yet, I was adamant that I needed to train using a tug because that is what you are “supposed to do.” It wasn’t until Chris finally asked me “Why are you doing this?” that I realized that it was the WRONG method for me and my dog. Since then, I have been focusing on using his pack and food drives rather than prey drive with much better results. The second instance was in agility. I enrolled him in a class to help with increasing his coordination. We were working on him walking up half of the teeter on to a platform and then down the other half. I was trying to lure him with food as we were instructed and he was getting distracted. The instructor finally said, “He is a GSD, they are smart. Just ask him to do it.” I backed up, pointed to the teeter and gave Bison the command. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. He watched the other dogs and knew what he was supposed to do. Trying to follow the “method” got in the way. All this to say, I am leery when I hear someone say this method is good or this method is bad or your dog isn’t any good unless you use this method or not use that method. A dog should be judged on who his/her is and their ability. Just because a GSD should be able to stand up to harsh training does not mean that he NEEDS that form of communication just the same as completely positive training can be abusive to the dog as it leave vague boundaries that are stressful for the dog. There has to be balance. Our dogs are all different, if we are all using the same methods, there is a problem.
*The statement “Not everyone should be doing SchH”.* I agree with this statement to a certain extent, but I don’t like the implication. From what I have read, I understand that the purpose of SchH is a breed test. So then, should only those who would breed their dogs be involved? I think not. I have a GSD that is not breed worthy. Yet the reason that I got involved was because it allows him to do what he was born to do. I enjoy obedience training, Rally, even now agility, but these are not what Bison was meant to do. There is something that I see in his eyes when he is engaged in protection training or tracking that I don’t see anywhere else. Should he miss these opportunities because he isn’t the “old style dog” or because I am a new “handler” or because he is not to be bred? Should EVERYONE be involved? No. But anyone who has a GSD that is passionate about them being allowed to be who they are and are willing to take the time and effort to work with them SHOULD be involved.
*Have Mals taken over? Is SchH not what it used to be?-* One year into SchH training, I have no point of reference, but I can say that any breed test that takes over a year to train to for the basic level there is a problem. When form is more important than function, there is a problem. When dogs are being bred for the short time that they are on the competition field rather than the hours that they spend with their family and the REAL “work” that they do, there is a problem. I don’t know that the answer is, but what I do know is that when I look for my next puppy, how high he can score on the SchH field is low on the priority list. What is high on this list is how much he is what makes him a GSD and how he will be off the field. What training for SchH has taught me is how to START (yes, I still have a lot to learn) identifying what those things are that make a good GSD, the drives (all of them, not just prey), thresholds, sustainability... and if it can still do that, all is not lost.


----------



## cliffson1

I am fortunate in that I train with a person who has that ability to affect a dog with presence. John has been training dogs for forty years, he does it for a living, and he really has a distaste for Sch because of what it has become. John can just posture on certain dogs and bring out stuff you never knew existed. He says a lot of top trainers look good with dogs of good potential, but when you have to train some of the lesser dogs to a result you know dogs. Whether it is the showline dog with hypersensitivity or the hard no prey dog that had no imprinting, he is able to reach them. Sometimes when we talk of old times its like talking to Anne when he talks. Its not the physical as much as its the reading of the dog and understanding on the dog's level what will kick him in. This is why I enjoy Anne's posts.


----------



## Samba

Anne wrote:


> There is a perfect drive level and with the really good GSDs, you have to kind of go in and get it and sometimes that is true in obedience as well. Once you do that, everything about the training is easier.


This resonates with me regarding the obedience. Sure I can train behaviors with a method. I often use markers and reward. But there is more to it. With my GSDs I have had to get deeper into the dog to get more from them. It doesn't result in a stressed dog for me. The result is more power in the exercise, whereas about half the dog was missing from it before! I don't know if that is what Anne meant, but that is what I related to it.


----------



## Catu

Them matter about if Schutzhund is for everyone or not reminds me of another thread, maybe a couple years ago, where I said Working Line dogs shouldn't be for everybody (I know I'm opening a bag of wildcats here), I remember i was almost hang back there, so I expect the same here... but sorry I still believe that. I remember the first time I saw a WL GSD and I was told how special dogs they where, how they needed experienced owners and that if you do not planned to do some sort of work with them, better look for another line or breed. I waited 5 years since I started in the dog world and to attend SchH seminars to get my first one. But in the boards all I read is "they need to do a lot of exercise". I know I'm a snob.



Vandal said:


> I am saying that some work BETTER when you train that way.


Something I love about Diabla is I can hit her with a shovel in the head, say "let's go" and she will jump back to work with the tail wagging. Now I'm working on detection I warn people looking that I'm not punishing her, I'm motivating her. When I walk to the spot where I'll ask Diabla to start the search I ask her for a more than perfect Fuss and I will scruff shake and slap her in the head all the way. But instead of shutting down, it makes her angry. It is like "Aaaaaaargh, I want to find that **** thing and I can't until my Fuss be perfect!!", so when I say "Find" she explodes to search like a bullet.


----------



## cliffson1

There is so much more to the statement that "Sch isn't for everyone" than passion, people, and method of training. To me Sch to the German Shepherd is like basic training to a military soldier. It is the minimum foundation for the breed. BUT, Sch doesn't have the meaning that it once had. There was a time when a Sch dog, be it one two or three was a dog that you knew has character, work ethic, and courage. This is not the case today. There are many many Sch dogs that are no more than play bunnies and have no real courage and only character through a routine. WHY????
Yet people insist that the title of Sch is a necessary requisite for breeding??? How can you equate these two suppositions. Because Sch has been watered down so anybody or dog that sticks with it long enough is eventually titled. Like in little league when everybody has to play whether they are worthy or not. That's okay for little league, but when you get to adult sports that represent something, there is a purpose to the team acheivement. Well if Sch no longer weeds out character deficiencies, the breed deteriorates in total.


----------



## Ruthie

cliffson1 said:


> There is so much more to the statement that "Sch isn't for everyone" than passion, people, and method of training. To me Sch to the German Shepherd is like basic training to a military soldier. It is the minimum foundation for the breed. BUT, Sch doesn't have the meaning that it once had. There was a time when a Sch dog, be it one two or three was a dog that you knew has character, work ethic, and courage. This is not the case today. There are many many Sch dogs that are no more than play bunnies and have no real courage and only character through a routine. WHY????
> Yet people insist that the title of Sch is a necessary requisite for breeding??? How can you equate these two suppositions. Because Sch has been watered down so anybody or dog that sticks with it long enough is eventually titled. Like in little league when everybody has to play whether they are worthy or not. That's okay for little league, but when you get to adult sports that represent something, there is a purpose to the team acheivement. Well if Sch no longer weeds out character deficiencies, the breed deteriorates in total.


I certainly understand what you are saying even though I have not experienced the change personally. But when someone says "SchH isn't for everyone" I take that to mean that only an elite group of people/dogs can participate. I disagree. 

I agree that not every dog should receive a title, especially if it is truly used as a breed standard. But, since it was basically built for GSD's I don't see an issue with anyone who has the time and passion to do it training for it. There are dogs in our club (by their owner's own admission) who will probably never title, but they have a great time training. They and their really enjoy what they are capable of doing.

Seems to me that if the issue is that SchH no longer weeds out character deficiencies, than the issue lies with the judges that are passing crap dogs and whomever is setting the standards by which they are judged. 

It is not with who is participating in training or even who is trialing. Just because you train a dog for SchH, it doesn't make them a SchH dog, the title does.


----------



## Fast

lhczth said:


> I remember reading what he wrote and he talked about bringing in Mals for health reasons. Not to make the GSD more like a Mal.


Being healthier _IS _making the GSD more like a Malinois.


----------



## Fast

Vandal said:


> My main point is that people nowadays, want GSDs to act like Mals and they look to methods that work best with Mals to train their GSDs.


A few years ago I went to the WUSV and hung out with a couple of dozen Malinois folks during the trial. And we all came to the same conclusion, GSD PEOPLE NEED TO STOP TRYING TO TRAIN LIKE MALINOIS PEOPLE!!!

One of the reasons Malinois are doing so well now is because Malinois people stopped training the dogs like they were GSDs. 20 years ago you were hard pressed to find a Malinois that wasen't a basket case in C from GSD geared helperwork or from GSD geared tracking training.


----------



## Fast

Samba said:


> I guess in reality, with a correct one, you mostly have to provide the correct "picture" to elicit what is inherently there.


:thumbup:

That's true for both breeds.


----------



## Vandal

Ruthie wrote:


> *The statement “Not everyone should be doing SchH”.* I agree with this statement to a certain extent, but I don’t like the implication
> 
> But when someone says "SchH isn't for everyone" I take that to mean that only an elite group of people/dogs can participate. I disagree.


Who made those statements?


----------



## Fast

> Although there will always be the excuse meisters in both breeds, most of the Mal people I know seem to be much more willing to admit who their breed is vs GSD people who are always making excuses.


I have read this whole thread and found some interesting opinions and ideas, but the above quote is the most important, IMO.

Until you get real about the GSD system and see how it is screwed up from every angle, the problems will continue. You have a breeding system that obviously dosen't work. Your dogs cost too much. You make more excuses than a preschooler. You blame the sport because it's gotten easier. BTW, If it's so easy why cant you win? And those rule changes were pushed by the SV not the DMC.

There is an ongoing joke with Malinois handlers about GSD handlers. We love to mention the word "nerves" to GSD people and watch them go crazy. It's hilarious that such a simple thing that we don't find a big problem can get them so wound up. :wild:


----------



## Vandal

> You blame the sport because it's gotten easier. BTW, If it's so easy why cant you win?


Time to switch sides, Fast is here.

You could make the case that it is not difficult enough for a GSD. As I already said, GSDs thrive on a challenge and SchH is not really providing one at the moment. Might be the Mals didn't do well 20 years ago because the test was too hard, not simply because they were trained wrong. :laugh:oke:


----------



## Fast

Vandal said:


> Time to switch sides, Fast is here.
> 
> You could make the case that it is not difficult enough for a GSD. As I already said, GSDs thrive on a challenge and SchH is not really providing one at the moment. Might be the Mals didn't do well 20 years ago because the test was too hard, not simply because they were trained wrong. :laugh:


So the SV pushed these changes for an easier sport for the benefit of the Malinois? 

In what ways do you think you can make schutzhund harder that can make it harder for the Malinois to win? If you have ideas I'm sure that USCA and the SV will more than glad to implement them. 

Then again maybe implementing something like that would take time away from all their important infighting.:lurking:

Oh, BTW, Malinois were winning then too.


----------



## cliffson1

Fast said:


> So the SV pushed these changes for an easier sport for the benefit of the Malinois?
> 
> In what ways do you think you can make schutzhund harder that can make it harder for the Malinois to win? If you have ideas I'm sure that USCA and the SV will more than glad to implement them.
> 
> Who do you think created the play bunnies....AKC???? Why would SV want to see things harder and jeopardize the cash cow of the black and red showdogs....follow the money young man!


----------



## Catu

Did you notice smilies are like calming signals on the internet?


----------



## cliffson1

I also didn't see anybody talking about catering to the elite. The point is still being missed or else another point that is not representative of my position is being substituted.
The reasons I listed before (judging,methods,the test itself), have had an impact on the breed, thus changing the structure and temperament of the breed. It is a requisite in most of Europe for GS to have Sch title to register the puppies. 65 to 70 percent of the GS in Europe are from showlines which are very lucrative in exportation to other countries. The majority of dogs in Europe and Germany in particular are no longer bred to or for work but for the pleasing asthectic appearance. Therefore it would be suicide to have a breed test that most of the big money dogs cannot pass. In todays world money trumps ideology.JMO


----------



## Ruthie

Vandal said:


> Ruthie wrote:
> Who made those statements?


 
I didn't say that anyone made those statements. I said that is what it implies. The purpose of bringing that up was simply to clarify what was meant.


----------



## Vandal

> So the SV pushed these changes for an easier sport for the benefit of the Malinois?


No, I think they lowered it for the dogs who didn't have what it took to do SchH and when they did, the Malinois took over. Now, what does that say? 





> In what ways do you think you can make schutzhund harder that can make it harder for the Malinois to win? If you have ideas I'm sure that USCA and the SV will more than glad to implement them.


Tracking perhaps and the reed stick could be something that would add to the cumulative stress factor .


----------



## Vandal

> I didn't say that anyone made those statements. I said that is what it implies. The purpose of bringing that up was simply to clarify what was meant.


Your use of quotation marks made it seem as if someone did. I explained what I meant on page 3 of this thread. However, it wasn't explaining what you quoted. What I said was different.


----------



## cliffson1

One last point, another major difference in today and yesterday in terms of this breed is intent: on the part of the owners, and the breeders. The intent of what breeders breed for and what owners desire to me are backwards from the past. In the past when the dog was still at its height in working, breeders bred for strong fearless type dogs as a type. Perspective owners KNEW when they made a decision to acquire a German Shepherd that they were getting a dog that was a protection dog type. People didn't look to get a German Shepherd that was primarily "warm and fuzzy or a dog psychiatrist for them". They were looking for a strong vigilant dog rather it was for family or profession. Somewhere along the line breeders started catering to producing dogs that were primarily warm and fuzzy for everybody to be able to own. Its like cars to me, you have variance from the volkswagon to the corvette. There is a demography for the volkswagon and there is one for the corvette. But you can't take away the core elements of speed, sleekness, etc. that defines the corvette; because people with volkswagon tastes want a corvette thats like a volkswagon. You will bleep up the corvette if you do and the car will no longer signify what it was created to be. Welll....as breeders have caved in on the core elements of the breed then the general public has migrated to a feeling of there should be GS that fit their lifestyles though it may be contrary to the real definition of the breed. And then unscrupulous breeders,(IMO), have tried to fill this demand by watering down the breed. Thus you have today a situation where the breed is not competitive with a Mal in a venue that was CREATED for the GS. :help:


----------



## Ruthie

Vandal said:


> Your use of quotation marks made it seem as if someone did. I explained what I meant on page 3 of this thread. However, it wasn't explaining what you quoted. What I said was different.


I believe what you said was...



> Now SchH is explained as just a game where the dog wants to get his prize, he isn't really biting anyone. That is a far cry from what it was when I first started and no, it was not a sport for everyone. Now it is packaged in a way that is more appealing to people who might also be attracted to Agility. That's not an insult to agility trainers but it does say quite a bit about what SchH is now , compared to then.


To someone who wasn't there when you first started and knowing the popularity of agility this implies, at least to me, that only an elite group of people should be able to do SchH. But, maybe you were saying that only people who are ok with their dogs "biting for real" should participate?


----------



## Vandal

I will just repeat what I said earlier to try to get this back on track a bit. Fast and I are in agreement on lots of things, it is possible we are lost twins, we think so much alike...of course, he is the evil twin. 

Anyway, I do think that well bred GSDs perform better when the heat is on. I have noticed it as the helper as well as the other phases. They track better in harder conditions etc. So, I am not kidding when I say that the test is too easy for them. The dogs just look better when they are tested vs just kind of going through the motions. Malinois seem to be able to look pretty good whether things are harder or not. It is that full blast factor vs the escalation GSD's do. It is not as easily turned up or down by the conditions or the helper work. I don't really want to turn this into an us vs them thread, even though I enjoy teasing Fast. I just think that if people used some pressure correctly in training, the GSD would start to perform better in trials.

I used to work with a guy who titled show dogs for people. He always wanted me to do as little as possible as the helper and just kid of lure the dog through protection. I noticed with a few of those dogs that they did better when there was more pressure. I have also noticed, like what I read Lies talking about with her dog, many of those dogs do better when it is more serious type work. At least initially they seem to need that to bring them out. I think the way people want to work those dogs, like the guy I just talked about, is making them look worse than they might really be. They do not have the prey drive to support the method of training people want to do with them, so, they look weak because what is being tapped is pretty much a dry well. While the working line dogs have more prey drive, when you leave out the rest of what the dog uses in protection, it has a similar affect on their performance.


----------



## Vandal

I will try one more time to explain it, although I believe it was made clear more than once. I believe, in my opinion.....that SchH has been watered down to appeal to a wider variety of people. I don't think it was intended to be a sport that would attract people from all walks of life. It attracted a certain kind of person with a certain type of dog. It was not a place where weak dogs or the people who owned them, would want to stay. Yes, there were lesser dogs but when I think of what we complained about, as far as the judging, I almost feel bad we were so hard on some of the judges. When you look at what it is like now, those judges, (who we criticized for being too easy), were tough.


----------



## W.Oliver

Autonomy - Ancient Greek - One who gives oneself their own law. The capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. Determining moral responsibility for one's actions.

The GSD we're speaking of is the moral responsibility of breeders like Anne, Lisa, Chris, Cliff and others. A responsibility they have taken upon themselves individually, un-coerced.

Would it be wrong for working line GSD breeders to band together and form a national organization? A registry? A pedigree website? A training network? Trial/title organization?

Is an isolationist approach so wrong?

On the GSD sea of turmoil, would working line autonomy simply offer an organzied path to secure the dog we're speaking of, for the future?


----------



## Vandal

I think it is time they come up with another way to test. Perhaps a Breed Survey that does not require a title to enter and is more of a test than what is currently happening at those events. 

I find it harder to motivate myself to do SchH than I used to..... Sure, some of it could be age but what it has become is certainly part of it. It just seemed more fun back then than it does now. Could have been the newness of it but I am not the only one who feels that way. When I trained my first SchH 3 dog, we were not told what the tracking conditions were going to be so we could practice in something similar. We were not told if the blind search starts to the right or left, not told where the send out was headed, ( goal posts etc). I recall watching dogs tracking and really kind of being on the edge of my seat because the conditions were much more challenging than what we see now. 

Now, the "top competitors" have been known to complain when they can see that a leg on their track is not perfectly straight...and this is in conditions where you can see every foot step. lol. When the North Americans were held in this area some years back, the tracks were the length of a short SchH 1 in dirt, where I could see every step from where I was watching. There were some beetles on the track that people whined about when their dogs were bothered by them. That was the only challenge about the entire track but some still complained. lol. It is so much about high points now and the bragging rights that go with it. There needs to be something that doesn't include points, so that side of the people is not encouraged. 

It needs to go back to being more about the dogs vs the people, because that, IMO, is what has changed the most. It is more political and more about who the people are vs. who the dogs are. I can't emphasize that point enough.


----------



## W.Oliver

Professionally, I am an organizer....I sort chaos and drive efficiency to achieve a goal.

When I look at the GSD, and weight all that has been written on this thread and many others....what I see is this;

At present, influence on the macro state of the GSD is driven by money, vis a' vis demand for red & black dogs. This influence has lead to a softening in SchH, and coinciding with that is the transformation from breed test to sport.

Control is in the hands of registries and clubs/participants(owners).

This condition results in dilution and minimisation of the working line dog in the population.....symptomatically expressed in the Mals domination of SchH in its current state.

The solution is for the breeders of these dogs we love, to stand-up and seize control, which is where the power should be. That could be accomplished if you cowboys & girls, would unite, and organize (maybe better than my SDA friends, but at least they're doing something about it!).


----------



## Mrs.K

> People didn't look to get a German Shepherd that was primarily "warm and fuzzy or a dog psychiatrist for them". They were looking for a strong vigilant dog rather it was for family or profession. *Somewhere along the line breeders started catering to producing dogs that were primarily warm and fuzzy for everybody to be able to own.*


Well... I disagree. They didn't breed warm & fuzzy to serve the public, they bred warm and fuzzy to earn money. 

Once German breeders discovered how much money they can earn on the side with German Shepherds they bred, and bred, and bred thousands of puppies, made hundreds of thousands of Deutsche Marks and now Euros and live off of breeding Shepherds. 

They sell them into the whole world. Cheating, Corruption, coloring the dogs fur to make them more attractive, charging ten thousands of Euros for a dog that goes to Thailand or somewhere else... 

Breeding German Shepherds is a huge and sometimes dirty business. Why do you think the dogs get chipped and the DNA gets checked now? 

A lot of dogs got doubled by a dog that just looked like the same. That dog got titled but the other one was bred. Judges got bribed so dogs got through the SchH1... 

Take Gildo for example. We all agree that he was one of the hardest dogs out there and that he passed on his genes. Somebody was so jealous about Gildo and my dad that he badmouthed the dog. He could have had much more offspring if it wasn't for that one, very powerful guy that badmouthed Gildo just because he was jealous of him. 

Orkan von der Maineiche, same thing. His owner also used to be a judge. The same person that was jealous about my dad and Gildo badmouthed the owner from Orkan. He said that he got kicked out of the SV and whatnot. The whole thing went to court and the judge won but the damage was done. 

That is one reason why the GSD is the way it is. People can't stand dogs that are better than their own and you know what drives people?

MONEY! (in big fat letters!)

These breeders don't care about to better the breed, all they care about to fill their pockets with money and the fame. 

Books, Training Videos, Litters, Seminars... money, money, money and making more money... that is what really ruins the breed!


----------



## Ruthie

Vandal said:


> I will try one more time to explain it, although I believe it was made clear more than once. I believe, in my opinion.....that SchH has been watered down to appeal to a wider variety of people. I don't think it was intended to be a sport that would attract people from all walks of life. It attracted a certain kind of person with a certain type of dog. It was not a place where weak dogs or the people who owned them, would want to stay. Yes, there were lesser dogs but when I think of what we complained about, as far as the judging, I almost feel bad we were so hard on some of the judges. When you look at what it is like now, those judges, (who we criticized for being too easy), were tough.


Thank you for clarifying. I guess I am just a little slow because I didn't get that from your ealier posts. I thought you were saying that having "everyone" participate was what caused the sport to change, not the other way around.


----------



## Vandal

> A lot of dogs got doubled by a dog that just looked like the same. That dog got titled but the other one was bred.


Oh yes, this is one advantage to having cookie cutter looks. I saw this happen as well and the one, who failed in reality but passed on paper, went on to be VA in this country. 

Oh well, I really am losing interest in talking about it. There is nothing little ol' me can do about the state of the human race. I just like my dogs more every day.


----------



## cliffson1

"The reasons I listed before (judging,methods,the test itself), have had an impact on the breed, thus changing the structure and temperament of the breed. It is a requisite in most of Europe for GS to have Sch title to register the puppies. 65 to 70 percent of the GS in Europe are from showlines which are very lucrative in exportation to other countries"

Mrs.K, I wrote the above post earlier before you quoted my post on "warm and fuzzy". I think it is clear in the above that I am saying its about exportation. I also wrote that the demise of the breed in working is due to "money trumps ideology". So my post you quoted, was in the context that I had already established money as being prime motivator. So I don't know what we are disagreeing about. Many of the new areas of exportation, (China,India, Pakistan, Japan,etc) that spend huge sums of money want a dog that is pretty and easy to manage. Thus the thriving business.


----------



## Fast

W.Oliver said:


> Would it be wrong for working line GSD breeders to band together and form a national organization? A registry? A pedigree website? A training network? Trial/title organization?


Did you wake up on the insane side of the bed this morning?!?!

The last thing in the world the GSD needs is ANOTHER organization. They already have enough to fuss and fight with.

Have you ever considered that good breeders need to leave the breed clubs and do what they know is right?


----------



## Vandal

uh huh...full blast....

Isn't there a Malinois organization? You are saying the organization is the problem which I am inclined to agree with. What is different about yours?


----------



## Fast

Vandal said:


> Tracking perhaps and the reed stick could be something that would add to the cumulative stress factor .


But how would you change it to put the Malinois at a disadvantage? I'm training my new young dog right now and looking for some challenges. 

I think the reed stick would be a big disadvantage for the GSD not the Malinois. Remember that the sports that most Malinois are bred for are very stick oriented.


----------



## Vandal

> But how would you change it to put the Malinois at a disadvantage? I'm training my new young dog right now and looking for some challenges.


Come on up, I'll try to help you out. :smirk:


----------



## Vandal

I am not that familiar with those other stick sports. Are the dogs hit with that stick or do they mostly shake it at them?


----------



## Fast

It seems to be seems to pretty accepted by most here that "Malinois can't think" and that the GSD is a "thinker". Here is a video of Belgian ring. Most of the dogs here in the US today have a lot if not all Belgian dogs. This, I feel, is why Malinois are so much better in schutzhund than they were 20 years ago. 20 years ago most of the dogs were French line dogs and they were/are not as suited for schutzhund, IMO. 

Watch the video and pay particular attention to the guard of object and defense of handler. Also the environmental stress is more than any other sport. 







I think Malinois just think differently than GSDs.


----------



## Aamer Sachedina

W.Oliver said:


> This condition results in dilution and minimisation of the working line dog in the population.....symptomatically expressed in the Mals domination of SchH in its current state.
> .


Thats one heck of a conclusion. So why don't all the 'real GSD' folks train their dogs the way they are supposed to train kick all the Malinois butts??


----------



## Fast

Vandal said:


> I am not that familiar with those other stick sports. Are the dogs hit with that stick or do they mostly shake it at them?


They just get hit in French Ring more in one bite than a schutzhund dog is in several trials.


----------



## Mrs.K

OH MY GOD! If that was my husband I would be scared about the family jewels. :wild::tongue::rofl:


----------



## Vandal

Saying one breed thinks does not imply the other does not. I don't know what it is today but I am finding the picking of sentences out of context, annoying.

I would like to see that last video in normal speed because I cannot tell how hard the dog is being hit.


----------



## Fast

Vandal said:


> Isn't there a Malinois organization?






> You are saying the organization is the problem which I am inclined to agree with. What is different about yours?




different kind of person that is into Malinois.
there ain't no money in it
most of the people are into workingline dogs
the work and show people are very happy to leave each other alone
most people are breeding and training dogs bred in the US
Most 90% of the dogs are HOT
the Malinois club is not beholden to a foreign club (SV)
no mandatory breed testing
no one is above the law
there is only one working Malinois club in the US


about 15%-20% of the membership is in the national every year
Do ya want more?


----------



## Vandal

> the Malinois club is not beholden to a foreign club (SV)


This is the one I agree with the most.


----------



## W.Oliver

cliffson1 said:


> .....65 to 70 percent of the GS in Europe are from showlines which are very lucrative in exportation to other countries......





W.Oliver said:


> This condition results in dilution and minimisation of the working line dog in the population......





Aamer Sachedina said:


> Thats one heck of a conclusion. So why don't all the 'real GSD' folks train their dogs the way they are supposed to train kick all the Malinois butts??


The supposition is that years ago, the working line percentage was higher than 30 to 35 percent, and I would be surprised you would argue that.....and therefore the question remains, "why don't us real GSD folks train our dogs they are supposed to be trained?" Thank you for your validation of the point Anne has already firmly established.

Seems we agree.


----------



## W.Oliver

Fast said:


> Did you wake up on the insane side of the bed this morning?!?!


Why yes, as a matter of fact, so happy you noticed! :crazy:



Fast said:


> The last thing in the world the GSD needs is ANOTHER organization.


On one level, so very, very true. But under the notion of taking the line down a conceptual isolationist path, there would only be one organization...its simply a function of perspective, anything else would be as relevant as the miniture poodle society.




Fast said:


> They already have enough to fuss and fight with.


Bullseye comment, that aspect of human nature will never fade, regardless the organizational structure.




Fast said:


> Have you ever considered that good breeders need to leave the breed clubs and do what they know is right?


That is where my trust lies with folks like Cliff, Lisa, Chis, Anne and others.


----------



## cliffson1

Fast, the exercises and stick work you see in Ring is a matter of training and conditioning as much as breed separation. I am a consultant for police training for NJK9 association and Dept. of Corrections. Just yesterday we were working dogs on building search at night, attacks in the building going through six or seven bystanders,(simulating other officers or bystanders), jumping through a window into a building to pursue the perp, and many many other things we do in the academy that severely tests environmental nerves and speed and agility. We have many bad--- Czech dogs that work on even par with the Mals. And this is real bites with perps hitting dogs with all kinds of objects, all kinds of jumps, attacks into chest high water, and much more. The breed can still compete, it just that people that use Sch as barometer and BREED based on that barometer alone are not producing the type of dogs consistently that can stand up. I agree with many things you listed as reasons and have echoed them myself, but there are still many nice working GS out there during real work. In NJ a dog can't work the streets unless it has completed 16 week academy, so I'm not talking about Sch dogs being used as police dogs.


----------



## Fast

cliffson1 said:


> Fast, the exercises and stick work you see in Ring is a matter of training and conditioning as much as breed separation. I am a consultant for police training for NJK9 association and Dept. of Corrections. Just yesterday we were working dogs on building search at night, attacks in the building going through six or seven bystanders,(simulating other officers or bystanders), jumping through a window into a building to pursue the perp, and many many other things we do in the academy that severely tests environmental nerves and speed and agility. We have many bad--- Czech dogs that work on even par with the Mals. And this is real bites with perps hitting dogs with all kinds of objects, all kinds of jumps, attacks into chest high water, and much more. The breed can still compete, it just that people that use Sch as barometer and BREED based on that barometer alone are not producing the type of dogs consistently that can stand up. I agree with many things you listed as reasons and have echoed them myself, but there are still many nice working GS out there during real work. In NJ a dog can't work the streets unless it has completed 16 week academy, so I'm not talking about Sch dogs being used as police dogs.


So let me get this straight, the GSD has been shaped by it's sport but the Malinois is only good at his sport because of training and conditioning? :crazy: Bullcrap.

There are very, very, very, very few (if any) police dogs in the world that have the training of a Belgian ring dog. There is simply no need. It takes about 3 or 4 years training before most dogs are ready to attempt the basic level of Belgian ring. And another 2 or 3 years to get to the highest level. Police dogs simply don't have that much time invested. So comparing the two is just inappropriate, IMO.


----------



## Aamer Sachedina

Fast said:


> There are very, very, very, very few (if any) police dogs in the world that have the training of a Belgian ring dog. There is simply no need. It takes about 3 or 4 years training before most dogs are ready to attempt the basic level of Belgian ring. And another 2 or 3 years to get to the highest level. Police dogs simply don't have that much time invested. So comparing the two is just inappropriate, IMO.


And that is Belgian Ring. Campange is even crazier. The dog is like 8 by the time he is at the highest level 

There was a time in the not so recent past when the GSD dominated the ring sports - was there not? At least had a substantially higher percentage of dogs that competed and did well - what happened. Were the ringsports also watered down for the show line GSDs?


----------



## Aamer Sachedina

W.Oliver said:


> The supposition is that years ago, the working line percentage was higher than 30 to 35 percent, and I would be surprised you would argue that.....and therefore the question remains, "why don't us real GSD folks train our dogs they are supposed to be trained?" Thank you for your validation of the point Anne has already firmly established.
> 
> Seems we agree.


How many show dogs do you see at high level Sch events ?

There is no doubt that a vast number of show dogs are being created and exported. No one is arguing that.

What I am arguing is your ridiculous conclusion that Sch has been watered down and because of that the Malinois are dominating. Sch has been watered down over the years. A vast chunk of the watering down is at the minimum title for breeding level and the breed survey - which I am sorry to say in many cases is a joke so that the show dogs can get through.

Let me offer you a different suggestion on why Malinois are dominating. I think the point has been made to an extent by Anne and others - or I might be reading into their responses. Here is what I think of the matter anyway.

Schutzhund has become a sport although it was meant to be a breed test. This leaves us in a wierd place because things that were supposed to tell the judge something about the dogs character have been elevated to ridiculous proportions because we need to be able to differentiate one dog/handler from another in competition. Take full calm grips. There were supposed to be ONE indicator to the judge about the dogs character. The judge was meant to take a look at the dogs grips and in addition to the rest of the dogs demeanor assess what was in the 'heart' of the dogs character. Today after breeding like crazy for them, its actually often hard to tell with GSDs what is in the dogs heart based on his grips.

Since it has become so stylized, and it was not designed as a sport, aesthetics mean a LOT. Under such circumstances, I believe, a reactive dog which notices detail in the world (Malinois) can be fine tuned to provide a more precise performance - thus obtaining excellent points in competition.

The GSD on the other hand was selected to be a less reactive dog which notices less detail than a belgian. It has higher thresholds in general. It was in part selected this way because of the methods used to train them. Dogs that did not do well in the type of training methods that were traditionally used in GSD circles, did not get bred. The GSD is a more blunt dog - less reactive dog. That makes it harder to fine tune performance given Sch is now a stylized sport.

On the upside, the best breeders in my opinion will not care about scores very much. The Sch training program is still worthwhile as one tool in a breeders tool box. If someone trained a breeding prospect to Sch3 on a strange field with a strange helper, they know a LOT about that dog and can make fairly sound breeding decisions about it. I think a LOT of the best breeding dogs end up having crappy scores in protection in particular because of control issues. So what! If you are evaluating for breeding purposes, screw the scores. The unfortunate part is that a lot of breeders do make breeding decisions based on BSP participation and scores obtained there. Good breeders will not in my opinion.

So let the GSD be what the GSD was meant to be, if you want a less reactive, rock solid dog that you can throw against a wall and have it bounce back. You know a dog that you can hit with a shovel without it minding. 

If you do have a dog like that it is strong, dominant and aggressive when it needs to be then it is probably a good GSD. Train and title it so that you know it well and breed it. Don't expect high scores in the 'sport' or Schutzhund with such a dog. If you want that either get a Malinois or start selecting for more reactive, sensitive dogs that notice detail in the world and won't put up with this crappy abuse. You WILL have to change your training methods if you do that.

I'm not particularly in to a dog like that - thats just my opinion. I like a more reactive and more sensitive dog. So I have Belgians. Personally I think if you do smack your dog with a shovel or just grab it by the scruff and smack its head for no good reason, I think that is plain abusive and I would wish upon you a nice solid mature male Malinois who would not put up with that crap and be up your arm in 1 second for that kind of behaviour. Sometimes I wish GSDs did this when I see the handling that they put up with from poor handlers.


----------



## Vandal

> What I am arguing is your ridiculous conclusion that Sch has been watered down and because of that the Malinois are dominating.


 
Actually, I think I was the one who said that in response to Fast when I decided to switch sides of the debate because of him. lol. It wasn't actually a serious comment.

I don't have much to add to what you said, although I do think the best breeding dogs don’t have to have control issues in protection . The best, most powerful dogs I have seen and worked were quite controllable and it was who those dogs were that allowed them to be both.


----------



## W.Oliver

Aamer Sachedina said:


> How many show dogs do you see at high level Sch events ?


One, at the WUSV, trained and handled by Ivan.... I believe, to make a point about the quality of his training methods, which I also believe he accomplished.



Aamer Sachedina said:


> Sch has been watered down over the years.
> 
> Schutzhund has become a sport although it was meant to be a breed test.
> 
> What I am arguing is your ridiculous conclusion that Sch has been watered down and because of that the Malinois are dominating.
> 
> Since it has become so stylized, and it was not designed as a sport, aesthetics mean a LOT. Under such circumstances, I believe, a reactive dog which notices detail in the world (Malinois) can be fine tuned to provide a more precise performance - thus obtaining excellent points in competition.
> 
> The GSD on the other hand was selected to be a less reactive dog which notices less detail than a belgian. It has higher thresholds in general.
> 
> The GSD is a more blunt dog - less reactive dog. That makes it harder to fine tune performance given Sch is now a stylized sport.


Aamer Sachedina, You are poster aggressive, sharp, with a low threshold, I can see where Mals are an excellent fit for you. :rofl: oke:

Again, I think we agree, you're simply turned around in your shorts and hung-up on semantics with respect to the "watered-down" phrase, which as Anne pointed out....I didn't coin, so Aus!, or Halte! or Donne! :wild:

Allow me to offer a more precise notion as to draw a less reactive response to the poster.  

The premise on which we agree is that SchH has changed. Rather than characterizing that change as watered-down, lets describe it as you have, a sport that is stylized, where aesthetics mean a LOT vis a' vis, Mals do well. If SchH remained a breed test, and more a measure of GSD characteristics, many of the posters here are suggesting the results would be different. It is simply a discussion of how the dynamics have changed to the detriment of GSD performance in a traditional activity that is a part of the fiber of what a GSD is. My OP was questioning if the Mals dominance in SchH was due to changes in SchH or changes in the breed, and the answer seems to be yes to both premises. In regard to the third leg of my OP question, no I do not believe Mals are a superior breed, they are simply a different breed with a different combination of characteristics. 

Although I appreciate Mals, I am not as studied on the breed. In the history of the Belgians, was there a traditional breed test for Mals that was simply lost over the years?


----------



## cliffson1

Fast,
My comment was that much that you are talking about is training and conditioning. The breed was bred to be a working dog not a sport dog. The sport has become as one person put it stylized and does not test breed worthiness. My only point is the same things that are done in ring that have a practical application to work, I see many law enforcement dogs doing the same thing. The degree and severity of these things are subject to the intent of the handler whether it be ring, sch, or LE. Sch was originally supposed to be for breed evaluation of the German Shepherd for use as a working dog. It does not serve that purpose in my opinion. I could care less about the top sport levels of Sch or Ring as they are just that to me "sport". I have handled trained/handled military and police dogs in the past and I have seen good Mals and good GS in both. I have found that good working dogs are limited by their training and conditioning. If you think that is bullcrap.....your preogrative. The good thing about being involved and exposed to dogs as long as I have, is that the life experiences can't be erased by opinions of others.peace


----------



## umzilla

W.Oliver said:


> Funny thing is, there are alot of Dutchies, and Mals in the SDA crowd....so given the context of our discussion, and the SDA training philosophy, it leaves me scratching my head a bit????


The founder of SDA was working to get Dutch Malinois as a recognized breed in UKC - not sure the status of that now. (http://www.cdhpr.com/pdf/FO1CDHPRDutchMalSingle.pdf - this is NOT a UKC application, but was just the initial part of the process) Also, the Dutch Shepherd is a UKC recognized breed, so naturally you will see many Dutch Shepherds in UKC events, from conformation to working events. No doubt some of those people have stayed around in SDA even after the split.


----------



## Fast

W.Oliver said:


> In the history of the Belgians, was there a traditional breed test for Mals that was simply lost over the years?


There was never a traditional breed test and I feel that this is one of the strengths of the breed.

The German Malinois Club (DMC) started a breed test about 10-12 years ago. Why? 'cause they are Germans! Here's a video of the DMC korung.


----------



## Aamer Sachedina

As Fast said, one of the strengths of the belgians is that there are three or four different training programs that they have been bred to excel. This has allowed the opportunity to bring in dogs across form one line to another. 

Michael Ellis tells me that the grips on the FR dogs used to not be good until they brought belgian ring dogs into their breeding program (Cartouche and descendants). In belgian ring, unlike FR, the quality of the grip is judged for points. The dogs have excellent grips and a very forward fighting and countering style.


----------



## Aamer Sachedina

W.Oliver said:


> One, at the WUSV, trained and handled by Ivan.... I believe, to make a point about the quality of his training methods, which I also believe he accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> Aamer Sachedina, You are poster aggressive, sharp, with a low threshold, I can see where Mals are an excellent fit for you. :rofl: oke:
> 
> Again, I think we agree, you're simply turned around in your shorts and hung-up on semantics with respect to the "watered-down" phrase, which as Anne pointed out....I didn't coin, so Aus!, or Halte! or Donne! :wild:
> 
> Allow me to offer a more precise notion as to draw a less reactive response to the poster.
> 
> The premise on which we agree is that SchH has changed. Rather than characterizing that change as watered-down, lets describe it as you have, a sport that is stylized, where aesthetics mean a LOT vis a' vis, Mals do well. If SchH remained a breed test, and more a measure of GSD characteristics, many of the posters here are suggesting the results would be different. It is simply a discussion of how the dynamics have changed to the detriment of GSD performance in a traditional activity that is a part of the fiber of what a GSD is. My OP was questioning if the Mals dominance in SchH was due to changes in SchH or changes in the breed, and the answer seems to be yes to both premises. In regard to the third leg of my OP question, no I do not believe Mals are a superior breed, they are simply a different breed with a different combination of characteristics.
> 
> Although I appreciate Mals, I am not as studied on the breed. In the history of the Belgians, was there a traditional breed test for Mals that was simply lost over the years?


W. Oliver. Your post was a blast :laugh: 

I tend to disagree that watered down and stylistic are the same thing. Over the years Sch as been watered down in my opinion wrt. the difficulty of some of the exercises for example. There used to be a palisade like in ring and an attack under gunfire if I am not mistaken. Was there ever an object guard?

Stylistic in my opinion is very different from watered down. Stylistic is when a dog that does not move his grips a micrometer is given a higher score on that technicality from a dog that does while the latter might be more dog and have more heart but simply has not been trained for the proper picture. When a breeding test becomes a sport you have to come up with some criteria to reward with more or less points to competitors. Unlike the ringsports where the judge is timing how long the out took and how many meters the decoy got to escape from the dog, all we have in Sch are the aesthetics of the exercises.


----------

