# Finding a true GSD



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

To all the breeders of the total GSD (intelligence, courage, aggression, hardness, biddability, family dog, working dog, etc), what would you say now are good tests? Should concerned breeders start their own version of a schutzhund test to bring back the parts of schutzhund that truly pushed dogs to their limits? Or will that again be corrupted by "sport" and the need to drop everything but what's necessary to make it to the top? There are still people out there who are not interested in a golden retriever wearing a GSD costume and also people not interested in getting on any podium or winning any big show. How would they know they're getting a REAL German shepherd and not a points dog nor a weak dog?

Breeders can talk the talk, but how do we know they walk the walk? Kennel blindness is prevalent and with how widespread this nation is it can be hard to see dogs work and when we do it may be on their home field. How do we KNOW we're getting a real GSD?


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Just my uneducated opinion... I think it would be a good idea for concerned breeders to create their own trial with a really beefed up version of the BH (gunshots and whatever other wacky things can be tossed in), tracking that just tests the dog's ability to track instead of how stylized it can be while tracking, and protection where the decoy doesn't just act like a wavey scarecrow but actively fights the dog and dodges the dog and tries to scare the crap out of the dog.... with a bite suit. Pass/fail only so no one can compete for points, no trophies, just a very high standard and if you pass, you pass, the judge gives detailed explanations of what was good and what was not so good, and if you fail, you fail. Trial must be done on strange field w/ strange decoy. In the new BH, dog should be able to accept petting by strangers without fear of anything going wrong. 

Am I off base or just dreaming again?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Fortunately, they can water down the rules to achieve a title all they want but they still can't dictate what we do in TRAINING. The people I have always trained with have always sought to strive for the total dog, whether it is awarded with points or not, and have done much in training that goes above and beyond what is needed to pass a trial (suit work, civil work, muzzle work, working the dog in many different environments not just the field, etc...) because it is fun and because it further tests the dog.

It's in the training to get to the title that you see the true dog. Watching a dog in trial can tell a lot if you know what you're looking for. Even in modern sporty SchH. But see the dog in training, and then you can really tell a lot.

There are still many such dogs and many such trainers out there. Can you tell them by a number in a scorebook? No. But I don't think you ever really could. There are just too many factors that can bring down a score, some dog related, some training related, some handling related, and by a number alone (or even TSB rating alone nowadays) you can't tell which is which. So get out and see the dogs, talk to the people, talk to other people who have seen the dogs.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I think agreeing on definitions is impossible. For some.... "good" aggression would only be when the handler says "packen." For others, "good" aggression would be a dog who does not tolerate strangers. There are just so many levels.

The biggest thing for newbies like me, is to get out there and see as many dogs and listen to as many people as possible. The "oldies" need to be availible to mentor, discuss, and teach.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:"good" aggression would be a dog who does not tolerate strangers.


Yikes.... liabilities just begging to happen.

Good posts so far. I agree about getting out more and seeing the dogs work. One thing I didn't like about the club I was visiting is that the TD said a good schutzhund GSD is one that you'd have to kennel 24/7, one that could never live in the house.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: DianaM tracking that just tests the dog's ability to track instead of how stylized it can be while tracking


Yet this misses out on a good portion of what SchH tracking tests.



> Originally Posted By: DianaM protection where the decoy doesn't just act like a wavey scarecrow but actively fights the dog and dodges the dog and tries to scare the crap out of the dog.... with a bite suit.


I've seen plenty of helpers in trials who are anything BUT wavey scarecrows and who do still fight the dog and pressure the dog. And of course there are many who don't, or can't, or who the *judges* instruct not to. But real protection work ain't dead yet. It's still out there, just not as common as it used to be.

Why do people always think a bite suit is a better test? Frankly, it's much easier to put pressure on a dog with a sleeve than in a bite suit. With a sleeve you can control the dog and where he goes and hunker down and pressure him. With a suit, quite often it's the dog who is in charge and the decoy doesn't have the positioning or leverage to do squat. Especially if it's an upper body dog, not a leg dog.



> Originally Posted By: DianaM
> Pass/fail only so no one can compete for points, no trophies, just a very high standard and if you pass, you pass, the judge gives detailed explanations of what was good and what was not so good, and if you fail, you fail.


Now THIS is think is an excellent idea.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

Good posts, interesting subject. Too busy today to say anything other than I have a dog who until she was 5 did not tolerate strangers without me on the other end of her leash (yes I worked her butt off socializing her, unfortunately the people who had her from 2 to 6 months didn't).


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:
> Why do people always think a bite suit is a better test? Frankly, it's much easier to put pressure on a dog with a sleeve than in a bite suit. With a sleeve you can control the dog and where he goes and hunker down and pressure him. With a suit, quite often it's the dog who is in charge and the decoy doesn't have the positioning or leverage to do squat. Especially if it's an upper body dog, not a leg dog.


Good point. Like I said, my UNeducated opinion.







My idea was to eliminate the dogs that are just completely sleeve-focused but I guess that that can happen on a bite suit that is not hidden, plus a dog can go to "safer spots" rather than be forced to face the decoy head-on.



> Quote:Yet this misses out on a good portion of what SchH tracking tests.


Any way to mesh the two? In SAR and police work, tracking is done just by the rule of "find it NOW" rather than with a specific style. Maybe add various surfaces and elevations in any given test?



> Quote:Now THIS is think is an excellent idea.


Hey at least I hit on one good thing!


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)




----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: DianaM
> My idea was to eliminate the dogs that are just completely sleeve-focused but I guess that that can happen on a bite suit that is not hidden, plus a dog can go to "safer spots" rather than be forced to face the decoy head-on.


I always wonder how much of the dog being "sleeve focused" is the dog, and how much is the TRAINING? They are TRAINED that way, the sleeve is a giant "tug toy"/reward for performing correctly. Ever seen how the handler runs the dog around the field with the sleeve in it's mouth after the helper slips it? To the dog it is all a big game. The dog wants to get at the SLEEVE, not the man IN the sleeve.

Then there are the dog that spit out the sleeve as soon as the helper slips it and tries to go back after the MAN. The dog only bites the sleeve becasue it is presented, if the helper didn't hold the sleeve out for the dog to bite, the dog would bite whatever body part is closest.

Not trying to "put down" methods or anything of the sort. (Not sure how to say thing but I now what I mean.)


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

The one thing breeders CANNOT forget is that no matter HOW strong, serious, determined, civil, agressive (whatever you want to call it) the dog is it STILL needs an OFF switch so it can go home at the end of the day, jump up on the couch and hang out with it's humans.

Balance ...

Too high strung, drivey, civil - you can't live with the animal. 

Too nervy, laid back, soft - you can't work with the animal.

You MUST have balance.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Great post, Lauri! Tracy, another good point. I like dogs that want to fight the helper (balanced), not the sleeve (prey-happy, IMO), but STILL can recognize the difference between the bad guy they just fought and random strangers that aren't a threat at all and act accordingly.


----------



## TRITON (May 10, 2005)

Great post Lauri! A good balanced GSD should be able to do exactly what you describe-that IMO comes down to nerves and temperament. 

I still think schutzhund is the best test despite it's imperfections. I also believe some of the other protection sports can also let you see the character of the dog. But I also want to see the dogs drive for tracking and the obedience, how it handles that pressure. I think also challenging your dog & training in other venues is also a plus. I personally like a variety of venues because I enjoy that myself. But despite what test you decide to pursue with your dogs for evaluation; you really have to know what you are looking for. 
I've seen dogs that some people may think are strong who I would say are actually nervy. You can see the stress leak through on the dog. Usually through watching training, being around the dog, seeing the dog in different settings you will see that come through. I've known of dogs who can look like a lion on the field(the dog was trained well) but run to the back of it's kennel if you made eye contact. I guess the best advice is to really look at the total package of the dog, it's temperament & nerves in a variety of situations-not just the competition field. Good training can mask faults so I'm not sure there is a perfect test. Knowing the bloodlines, the families well, and trying to be as impartial as possible is what breeders need to strive for.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: BlackGSD
> 
> I always wonder how much of the dog being "sleeve focused" is the dog, and how much is the TRAINING? They are TRAINED that way, the sleeve is a giant "tug toy"/reward for performing correctly. Ever seen how the handler runs the dog around the field with the sleeve in it's mouth after the helper slips it? To the dog it is all a big game. The dog wants to get at the SLEEVE, not the man IN the sleeve.
> 
> Then there are the dog that spit out the sleeve as soon as the helper slips it and tries to go back after the MAN. The dog only bites the sleeve becasue it is presented, if the helper didn't hold the sleeve out for the dog to bite, the dog would bite whatever body part is closest.


Quite a bit is the training. Quite a bit is the genetics of the dog.

But in reality NONE of it is the equipment used. There are dogs who view the sleeve as a big toy and the helper as a playmate. And there are dogs who view the sleeve as merely an extension of the helper, and have been taught it is the only acceptable target, but who are out there to fight. And there are still some helpers, clubs and judges who are going to make it VERY clear which is which come trial day. 

Likewise, there are dogs who view the bite suit as serious business and are after the decoy, who's thankful he's wearing a full suit to provide protection wherever the dog nails him. But there are plenty who view it as nothing but a big human shaped tug toy. Heck, there is equipment designed just to do that.... bitesuit type leg sleeves and arm sleeves used on young dogs before them move onto the full suit. Prey, prey, prey. ESPECIALLY when the helper is dancing and dodging all about as is often seen in many of the biting sports that utilize suits. The athleticism of the decoys is admirable, the pressure or test of the dogs though is rather unimpressive when the decoy serves to make himself nothing but a gigantic scurrying bunny rabbit.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

Very true Chris. A helper wearing a bite suit looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy, not a "regular " person wearing street clothes.

How many of the above mentioned dogs woud give a second look to a "helper" wearing street clothes and NOT acting like a"gigantic scurring bunny rabbit? (After all REAL "bad guys" usually don't act like that.)


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: BlackGSD
> 
> Ever seen how the handler runs the dog around the field with the sleeve in it's mouth after the helper slips it? To the dog it is all a big game. The dog wants to get at the SLEEVE, not the man IN the sleeve.



I sort of went off on a tangent in my other post and after rereading this one, I wanted to comment on this. It is incorrect to automatically assume that a dog carrying the sleeve in this manner is a prey dog or a dog only playing a game with a tug toy.

Bitework is stressful. The goal of any dog when confronting a threat or opponent is to dominate it and drive it away. In training it isn't practical for the helper to run away in fear every time the dog reacts properly. Especially only to come back a second later to work on the next exercise. 

The dogs learn that the sleeve is the reward, but not just in the sense of it being a toy. It is their cue that that confrontation is over and they won. Slipping the sleeve allows the dog to de-stress and also serves to show him that he won that round. A dog who views the sleeve as an extension of the helper, and the training as a confrontation, not a game, may still proudly parade the sleeve because he knows he won.

A dog spitting out the sleeve and going after the helper isn't necessarily a bad *$% dog. It may be a very civil dog or may be a dog very unclear in the head who either wasn't properly trained to understand the cue that the fight is over, can't control his aggression, cannot switch between drives correctly, or is still feeling threatened by a helper just standing there not doing anything. So it's not necessarily a good thing and doesn't necessarily mean a tough dog, just as a dog carrying the slipped sleeve doesn't necessarily mean a pansy playing dog.

Though this erroneous assumption of dog carrying sleeve automatically means prey dog playing with toy, just like the one that bite suits are better/tougher/more real than sleeves, seems to be very widespread and no doubt contributes to the attitude that SchH isn't or can't be a valid test.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: DianaM
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Chris Wild
> Quite a bit is the training. Quite a bit is the genetics of the dog.
> 
> But in reality NONE of it is the equipment used. There are dogs who view the sleeve as a big toy and the helper as a playmate. And there are dogs who view the sleeve as merely an extension of the helper, and have been taught it is the only acceptable target, but who are out there to fight. And there are still some helpers, clubs and judges who are going to make it VERY clear which is which come trial day.
> ...


You forgot to mention that through training the dog can be taught a cue where the dog views any person in equipment or not as a target and the activated drive in this case is not necessarily even aggression, it's prey. It is perfectly possible to have a "real street dog" biting hidden equipment or taking real street bite who has no aggression at all. One who views anything he is pointed at with the proper cue as a valid chew toy. This is after all why Malinois are popular police dogs.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Tim Wild
> 
> 
> DianaM said:
> ...


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Chris, that's a good idea. Article search in a dark building or enclosed space, perhaps with strange flooring. 

Tim and Chris, great explanations. 

Eagerly awaiting more.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Quote: Only thing I would add is that one big component to SAR/police style tracking and other forms of scent detection work (drugs, bombs, etc...) is hunt drive. And nothing in SchH tracking tests for that. They way SchH tracking is designed to test the things it is looking for would make it pretty well impossible to include something to evaluate hunt drive.


I disagree with this statement. No, maybe a SchH1 test or even the 3 does not test hunt drive, but the FH and especially the FH2 do. Or the IPO FH championships where they must do two FH2 over a 2 day period. Hunt drive is what gets the dog to continue working, despite the conditions, on long tracks when they are tired while following the very artificial style demanded by the rules.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:while following the very artificial style demanded by the rules.


Lisa, do you agree with the style or do you think it could be done differently with more benefit?

For anyone interested, here is a description of the FH2 track: "The FH 2 tracks difficulty, in part, comes from its 2,000 to 3,000 yard length. Like the VST track there is to be a variety of terrain changes. One of the most difficult parts if the FH 2 track is the lack of a defined starting point. The dog must find the starting article within the three-minute time limit to qualify for running the rest of the track. This track has a total of eight articles, two 30° angle turns, and a tight half-circle. There is a cross track but unlike those used for the other tracks this one is laid down 30 minutes before the track is run. Perhaps the most difficult part of the FH 2 track is its great length. This track is at least 2 1/2 times the length of a VST track."

Quoted from: http://www.danika.com/library/trackdif.html


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

These are the old rules. The FH2 now has a regular start. 

From what I have seen, unless you are after points I do not feel the rules need to change. Even dogs with a looser style of tracking can consistently pass an FH2 as long as they continue to work, work independently, find all of the articles and follow the track to its completion. I am not talking about a loose style like I have seen in many AKC tracking dogs, but less perfect than what is demanded for a 'V' score.

Something else people might want to look into are the new AWDF titles.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

> Quote: The FH2 now has a regular start.


When did they change the start? Last FH2 I watched they still had the article indication first? but it's been about a year now..


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Within the last year, but I don't remember when.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

Great thread. Thank You to all the lifers for teaching with care, compassion and passing on the many tidbits of wisdom contained herein.

I've only witnessed one FH2, and was completely humbled and impressed. To get there to me is one long and winding road and anyone who's done it deserves kudos and congratulations for working that hard and long, and the dog - a big juicy steak! 

As for the naysayers of the sport, it is what it is, but until you have walked the walk, put in the time and effort required to put a title on,
you can't really **** the whole shebang, and if you have, despite the changes and shortcomings, likely won't.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: lhczth
> 
> I disagree with this statement. No, maybe a SchH1 test or even the 3 does not test hunt drive, but the FH and especially the FH2 do. Or the IPO FH championships where they must do two FH2 over a 2 day period. Hunt drive is what gets the dog to continue working, despite the conditions, on long tracks when they are tired while following the very artificial style demanded by the rules.


I agree when we're getting into the realm of 1+ mile long tracks, hunt drive enters the picture.

But I guess the question I have there is are we supposed to be testing the dogs or the training? Obviously from a sport aspect it's a combination of both. But from a breed test aspect IMO it should be more about the dog's abilities. Not whether the trainer has the skill, time schedule, access to gigantic tracking grounds, and obsessive dedication to train a dog to an FH2 level. So in the sense of testing hunt drive, something that is more about the dog and less about the training would seem to make more sense. 

In the relatively short time I've been doing SchH (10 years) compared to others I have seen it evolve to be more about the training and less about the dog. To the point where the really good dogs are often overshadowed by the lesser dogs, and things like the silent guard become prevalent because it can make for higher points even though it interferes with seeing the dog's character. Talking to old timers, and just watching videos from 20-30 years ago, and it's pretty obvious that it's become even more and more about the training and less about the dogs as time has gone on. Enlightening to listen to big name, old time trainers, who care more about the breed than the sport, complain that even the SchH1 of today is too hard from a training standpoint, while at the same time being less of a test for the dog.

So from the standpoint of "finding a true GSD" figuring out a method that places more emphasis on the dog and can be achieved with a reasonable, not ridiculous, amount of training makes sense. In terms of testing hunt drive, a SchH1 track just really doesn't, and a track that does, like the FH2 is far to the other extreme. So something attainable with a reasonable amount of training, sort of on par with the training required for SchH1 level everything else to test hunt drive could be advantageous from a breeding aspect.

How to take what we have and make it a better breed test and less of a training test? I don't really know. Having a non-sport aspect without scores and such could accomplish a lot, but I don't see it happening in the real world.

The AWDF titles (which for those who don't know are essentially more old rules SchH from pre 2003/4?? when there were major rule changes) have potential. I think SDA has a lot of potential as well. But SchH is and always has been the "gold standard" and probably always will be in people's minds. So the question there is whether or not other venues, even if a better test for the dog, will get taken seriously.

Hoping RSV2000 really gets going in Germany and then Raiser is able to carry out his plan to have satellite groups in the US and other countries shortly thereafter. I see a lot of potential there from the "finding a true GSD" standpoint, and considering who started it and who is involved in it, it just might get taken seriously in the coming years.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

We are always writing that the testing is in the training and not 
necessarily the titles. Should we make the titles easier and the training less time consuming and requiring less dedication and perseverance just because it is inconvenient? How would this help our breed other than making it easier to put out more puppies from "titled" bitches?


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I just wanted to add:

The working dog breeders I have known do not rely solely
on "sport" of any kind to test their dogs. The testing is in the training, in their daily lives, in the extra training they do that is above and beyond the sports. In my eyes the purpose of the titles is to "keep us honest". In that I mean it keeps the blinder off, helps prevent the kennel blindness for those of us willing to see. It also shows that we were willing to put our dogs and our breeding program in front of all to be judged and evaluated.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Since I was talking mainly about your example of the FH2 as a test of hunt drive, the main point I was trying to make is that a test of breedworthiness that requires THAT level of training and dedication would be ridiculous. It wouldn't improve anything, but would make things worse since we'd have even more unearned and bought titles because what it would take to title would be obscene. If the training isn't reasonably achievable with a sane amount of dedication it's useless because more and more people will work around it. So if testing hunt drive became a priority in terms of titles for breed worthiness then yes, something easier and time consuming than an FH2 would be appropriate. 

But overall I'm not saying make the training easier, but rather more purposeful and back to the whole original point of the test. So much of what we do in training for titles nowadays isn't about testing the dogs, but about getting points. And quite often the points awarded don't reflect much in the dog, but rather a whole lot about the trainer... and in some cases rewarding the wrong things in the dog, and penalizing good things.

Just look at obedience where the current trend is for flashy, prancy, staring at the handler the entire time. Is this sort of stylized dance routine needed to test willingness, trainability, ability to focus on the handler, drive, etc...? It's completely impractical for an actual working dog. In the old days everyone reminisces about when SchH was (supposedly) more of a test and less of a sport, it was unheard of. No, I don't think this level of precision or style of obedience work is needed to test the dog and show what the exercises were originally designed to test. But it looks cool, and it showcases the skills of the trainer more, so more and more it is what is rewarded. To the point where the most recent set of rule clarifications actually had to state that focus does NOT require the dog to stare at the handler the whole time. It's rather ludicrous to have gotten to the point where the rules have to specify that, because the common interpretation is that if a dog doesn't stare at his handler the entire routine, even if he does everything else perfectly, he doesn't deserve a V score. 

So because that is what is looked for today, trainers today are putting a ton of time and effort into getting that perfect picture of focus, when it really has nothing to do with the dog's breedworthiness or his ability to perform the actual exercises correctly. Since it is a competitive sport, not only are trainers obsessing and nitpicking training to death striving for a useless for work but needed for sport picture in their routines, but we see more and more dogs being bred for the more sporty, Malinois in a GSD suit temperament of insane drive and nervous edge because that sort of temperament is more conducive to super flashy obedience routines that bring big points. Seems to me not only is this current expectation in obedience focusing more on the training than the dogs but it's having a negative impact by changing the goals of many breeding programs to focus on things that also are not needed, or desireable, in a working dog.

Since we now have to take twice as much time to teach heeling as trainers used to in order to get good heeling plus perfect focus, flashy prance, etc... is it paying off in teaching us double about the dog's temperament? I don't think so. Sure it does look cool, and it's a lot more fun and the training methods employed tend to be more humane than common practices in the past. But is double the work paying off with double the insight into the dog? Or at best are we learning a few things we might not have learned about the dogs in the past, things that may or may not have any value, at the expense of missing out on other things, possibly more important things from a breed test perspective?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: lhczthI just wanted to add:
> 
> The working dog breeders I have known do not rely solely
> on "sport" of any kind to test their dogs. The testing is in the training, in their daily lives, in the extra training they do that is above and beyond the sports. In my eyes the purpose of the titles is to "keep us honest". In that I mean it keeps the blinder off, helps prevent the kennel blindness for those of us willing to see. It also shows that we were willing to put our dogs and our breeding program in front of all to be judged and evaluated.


Agree. But I thought what Dianna was asking was to the effect of how could a testing program be structured in a way that an outsider could interpret it. Yes, the good breeders go beyond just the title and really do use the title as a learning process and not just some letters after the dogs name. But how does someone else, who doesn't know the dog, doesn't know the breeder, tell one from the other?

I was under the impression she was asking for a means of a test that was more cut and dried and tested the dog with less fudge factor and less room for different interpretations. Something where a person who didn't know the dog, didn't know the handler, didn't know the preferences or training style or ethics of the breeder could look at and it would tell that person valuable, accurate information about the dog.

I'm not sure anything like that is even possible. But I do think if it were going to come about, part of it would have to be designed where the training wasn't necessarily easier, but less stylized and focusing on more practical things than who can teach his dog to **** his head to the side and dance around best.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Diana, one "n." 









What Chris said in the post above this one. We have people who do enough research to know that a dog should be titled and hip cleared yet they see that flashy showline breeder with dogs that have miles of titles when in reality those titles were half-a'd or bought. Or someone finds a breeder who works their dogs so they are earning their titles but they're just points dogs and overly intense at that. 



> Quote:But I do think if it were going to come about, part of it would have to be designed where the training wasn't necessarily easier, but less stylized and focusing on more practical things than who can teach his dog to **** his head to the side and dance around best.


YES. I don't care how good the trainer is, I don't care that the dog prances better than an Olympics-winning Dressage horse, I don't care that the dog can put on a helluva show and never scores less than 98 on anything, I just care that the dog is crystal clear in the brain, has rock solid temperament, has all the proper drives in balance, is able to work in just about any capacity required, and can serve in the often-difficult role of family pet in the world of lawsuits and BSL and stupidity.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm not sure what the tests should exactly be but I do agree with Chris that they should be reasonably easy to obtain, not insofar as "easy that any dog could do it" but easy as in "in today's working world with today's working schedules, a breeder should have the time to train the dog for the title without bending over backwards." In thinking about it further, they should be pass/fail with no awards given other than a certificate of passing, the title itself, and a full critique that could assist in breeding decisions by the dog's handler AND should be easily understood by a puppy buyer.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

If a test is just pass fail then how do you know the superior dogs Vs. the average dogs? 

Why? Why should it be easy? Personally I don't think breeding working dogs should be easy or require less of a time investment. I think breeding should be harder (not because the government demands it, but because the buyers demand it). 

In the long run it boils down to one thing. The responsibility of potential buyers to really research the dogs and the breeder that might produce their next prospect. If buyers would do this they would not have to be fooled by "fake" or "bought" titles and they would know the parents have the drives, temperament, nerves, character, etc that they want and that the breeder tests for these traits. 

Just my not so humble opinion.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:If a test is just pass fail then how do you know the superior dogs Vs. the average dogs?


Set a very high standard and have all the details of "sufficient" versus "proficient" in the judge's report. ETA: I just think when points and scores get into the picture, then the human's need to compete will rear its ugly head and then we'll be right back to Square One with sport dogs vs "real" dogs. Since genetics is still somewhat of a mystery, I do think dogs should be matched for breeding by the details in these reports versus something so abstract as points. 99 points in protection is great, but what exactly does that tell you besides he did very well in the eyes of the judge?



> Quote:Why? Why should it be easy?


I don't think it should be easy, but I do think it should be *easier* for people to get involved with (after all, this is a great way to learn about your dog, dogs in general, and find out your true dedication level). How many people have come on here for advice after getting laughed out of a schutzhund club or turned away because they didn't have "the right dog?" I think the difficultly level as it stands right now for a handler is just fine. Chris is right in that such a huge track as the FH2 is prohibitive for many who can't find a plain SchH 1 tracking area, but I still think one can add variable surfaces and elevations in a SchH 1 size track for some serious problem solving, and this shouldn't be prohibitively harder to train for. But then again, I'm not sure if this would screw up the purpose of a Sch track? 



> Quote:The responsibility of potential buyers to really research the dogs and the breeder that might produce their next prospect. If buyers would do this they would not have to be fooled by "fake" or "bought" titles and they would know the parents have the drives, temperament, nerves, character, etc that they want and that the breeder tests for these traits.


Agreed, but again, it can take months or even years of research to find out that everything they thought was right and good was in fact just a sham. For the longest time, I thought the mark of a good GSD was one with "Ch" prefixing its name! Then it was dogs with titles on the OTHER end, but now I've learned that it's not so much the titles as it is the training that went into the dog, what the dog was exposed to, and whether or not the dog was pushed to its limits with flying colors. Many people think that they have done the research but the reality is that there is a phenomenal amount of information out there on this breed and much of it is dubious or downright lies and scams. 

IMO, I think the responsibility is equally shared. Breeders should be helping to honestly educate buyers and buyers should be researching as much as possible, but since a breeder will always know more than the average buyer, the buyer can't be expected to have learned everything that goes on in the GSD world.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

A good breeder does not breed based on points. 

You are buying a living feeling creature that will be your working partner for about 8-10 years and your companion for 12 or so. I would think that a person would be willing to put the time into making sure the breeder and the parents of your prospect are producing what you want. Breeders are producing a "product" and if they are going to sell that "product" to educated working handlers then they will be forced to do the testing. Having more "titles" or finding new "titles" to put on the dogs won't change this. 

For those who want different working titles on their breeding stock there are other options out there that they can do besides SchH. If they want these titles recognized then they need to educate the buyers of those title's value. I also pointed out the new AWDF titles that were designed for those who want to test their dogs more thoroughly while still basically using the concepts of SchH.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I personally don't think there is any test that is currently devised that will be enough for me to make a breeding decision. Frankly, I pay little attention to the titles in terms of a Sch1, or Sch3. If the dog has a 1 or 3 it tells me that this dog was in a home or kennel that allowed him to demonstrate he CAN pass the test. And if he can pass a one with enough money he can pass a three. Not knocking titles, but there is so much more that has to be considered for me, to breed to a dog, like pedigree and personally witnessing the dog. If you made me buy a German Sheherd dog based solely on a title it would be a KNPV title and not a Sch title.JMO
If you talk to people who have consistently bred nice litters you will find that they have ample knowledge of the dogs they are breeding and ample knowledge of most of the dogs in the first three generations of their dogs. When talking to them they barely mention the fact, that the dog has a title, as being the primary reason that they used that dog. Again, the only exception is sometimes I hear people I respect say they used a dog that was KNPV or Met lof. So, in conclusion I tend to agree with Chris, and feel the sch title is really an outward show of training and perserverance of the trainer/handler, and not a test I would use to make a breeding decision.


----------



## windwalker718 (Oct 9, 2008)

German Shepherds are such a multi talented dog that focusing on only one aspect of their abilities does them an injustice. Just like there are some owners who want a semi psycho dog, who is barely under handler control in attack situations... there are some owners who are only capable of handling with the old "Golden Retr. in a Shepherd suit"... the latter still LOVE their version of the Shepherd, and while it's not my cuppa there's nothing wrong with that kind of Shepherd being around. It truly is a reflection of the diversity withing the genetic pool. Those mild mannered dogs don't need to be unbalanced weak dogs who hide trembling under the sofa, but rather outgoing dogs that don't bolt at every backfire they hear. The dog who may be perfect in my eye may well be beyond the ability of another owner to manage... Yet they still LOVE the breed. 

I'd like to see some test that reflects basic mental stability. Not so much aggression, or drive type tests for Schutzhund bite work... but for a mental stable dog in general. Maybe something like the CGC award?? Where the owner/handler ability is not what's tested, but the basic test of a dog being ok mentally. In the USA that's not going to happen as the AKC is ONLY a registering body saying that the breeder certified that both dogs are purebred shepherds. They take no responsibility for policing breeding practices or enforcing the breed standard as a requirement for breeding.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Windwalker, These type of dogs that you mention are usually found in a good litter...not all dogs in a correctly bred GS litter will have the harder temperament, but the majority of the dogs in the litter should be able to meet the standard in temperament, and whether it is herding or police work the dog should have strong assertion characteristics to be able to handle sheep or people. This is just what the dog is by standard and creation. I have nothing against the dog that you described, but they shouldn't be bred, less we go down a path of creating a dog who's temperament is corruptible. Lastly, a correctly bred German Shepherd with good nerves should be able to settle right down in the house very easily. Then you might say,"Well yeah if that dog has adequate training", and I say, "BINGO", this is the nature of the dog, that it is to be trained to reflect the awesome capabilities it possesses. If people purchase this dog and then want it to behave like a poodle living in Manhatten, then shame on them. But if the dog is just given CD level of basic obedience, we have a friend, companion, and protector for life....after all should'nt the dog remain what it was meant to be??????


----------



## Amaruq (Aug 29, 2001)

Excellent post Clifton!


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Windwalker18
> I'd like to see some test that reflects basic mental stability. Not so much aggression, or drive type tests for Schutzhund bite work... but for a mental stable dog in general.


Good, but that type of test should be for every breed. How can you test that the dog is a good GSD and not a good Labrador Retriever or Siberian Husky?

I love SAR, and I think that a B IRO certification is as much exigent as a SchH III, but I don't consider it a breed worthiness test because any good dog of any good breed can pass. Yes, the dog is good, but it leaves behind a lot of parameters that make a German Shepherd, what a German Shepherd should be, a breed that you should be able to recognize and differentiate of other breeds not only because of size, muzzle shape and color coat, but in behaviour too.



> Originally Posted By: DianaMTo all the breeders of the total GSD (intelligence, courage, aggression, hardness, biddability, family dog, working dog, etc),


Exactly! And hardness, courage and aggression are as much part of a GSD as pointed ears. If you don't want that you can choose another breed or look for a pup with low aggression to enjoy him but not to breed him.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

> Quote:I'd like to see some test that reflects basic mental stability. Not so much aggression, or drive type tests for Schutzhund bite work


But without stable and controlled and proper aggression, this is not a GSD. Maybe it's a shiloh, but it's no GSD. As for people who like the GSD but prefer it to be a golden retriever in temperament, they don't really like the GSD, they are just in love with the IDEA of a GSD. They should stick to goldens or shilohs but a true GSD simply is not an easy dog for everyone and nor should it be. If dogs like these happen in normal breedings, that is fine and dandy but they should never be intentionally bred to be soft dogs lacking aggression and courage.



> Quote:a breed that you should be able to recognize and differentiate of other breeds not only because of size, muzzle shape and color coat, but in behaviour too.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Excellent, Cliff!!


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

The CGC is as much a test of training as any other test. The CGC doesn't even come close to being a suitable test of the nerves, character, and temperament needed in a breeding dog. What it says is that the handler and dog have put in enough time training that the dog has the manners needed to be a good canine citizen. I am an evaluator.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: DianaM
> 
> But without stable and controlled and proper aggression, this is not a GSD. Maybe it's a shiloh, but it's no GSD. As for people who like the GSD but prefer it to be a golden retriever in temperament, they don't really like the GSD, they are just in love with the IDEA of a GSD. They should stick to goldens or shilohs but a true GSD simply is not an easy dog for everyone and nor should it be.












Many people like the LOOKS of a GSD. And want/get one because of that. But they can't handle the temeperment of a "real" GSD. So they want/get one that is a Golden is a in GSD suit. And I feel those types of people should "suck it up" and get a breed whose temperment fits their wants/needs. NOT "ruin" the GSD to fit what they want. (I am talking about people that intentionally breed "Pet" GSDs. I don't have an issue with folks that want to GSD that is lower in drive than the "norm", as long as they go to a GOOD breeder(Meaning one that tries to breed to the standard.) and not one that breeds "pets" intentionally. ) 

There are breeds that I really like the looks of, but the breeds temperment does NOT work for me. But rather than try to fit the breed to suit me, I just admire them from afar and I OWN breeds that I CAN get along with. I would have a German Wirehaired Pointer, IF they had the temperment of a GSD. But they don't and they aren't SUPPOSED to so I will never have one.


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: lhczthThe CGC is as much a test of training as any other test. The CGC doesn't even come close to being a suitable test of the nerves, character, and temperament needed in a breeding dog. What it says is that the handler and dog have put in enough time training that the dog has the manners needed to be a good canine citizen. I am an evaluator.


I agree with this 100%. Risa has her CGC. She's also sound-phobic, dog reactive, shy around people, and afraid in new situations. Even if she were a purebred dog, she wouldn't be a good candidate for anyone's breeding program.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Murphy-Elperroguapo
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: lhczthThe CGC is as much a test of training as any other test. The CGC doesn't even come close to being a suitable test of the nerves, character, and temperament needed in a breeding dog. What it says is that the handler and dog have put in enough time training that the dog has the manners needed to be a good canine citizen. I am an evaluator.
> ...


Also agree.

Plus, since we're talking about "finding a true GSD" any sort of test to that effect should be specific to the traits of that breed. What is appropriate for the breed to do what it was designed to do, beyond it's ability to be a sound pet. Yes a sound GSD can excel in that area, but it is also capable of so much more and that "more" is a big part of what defines this breed and makes a GSD a GSD.

A general test that frankly ANY dog of ANY breed ought to be able to pass, and ANY halfway decent dog owner ought to be able to handle the relatively minor training level involved to get the dog to pass, is no where near enough to determine breed worthiness in a GSD or most any other breed. Maybe the few breeds that were designed to be pets and nothing more, but that certainly doesn't apply to this breed.


----------



## windwalker718 (Oct 9, 2008)

Excellent points... ^5 to all of them! 

My thought was of the Shepherds I've seen in the hands of the public who would have no idea at all how to deal with the kind of Shepherd that I personally prefer. Sadly the last portion of my post is all too true... not just for Shepherds, but for all AKC breeds. 



> Originally Posted By: Windwalker18 In the USA that's not going to happen as the AKC is ONLY a registering body saying that the breeder certified that both dogs are purebred shepherds. They take no responsibility for policing breeding practices or enforcing the breed standard as a requirement for breeding.


For a body that SAYS that they're aim is the improvement of pure bred dogs, they revert back to this stance whenever pressed to actually do something specific.


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: lhczthThe CGC is as much a test of training... ...What it says is that the handler and dog have put in enough time training that the dog has the manners needed to be a good canine citizen.


The funny thing is, when I got Isa's and Cody's CGC done, I never trained for it or even knew what was in the test. When my dogs passed, I was like, wow, that was easy. So you are right, it's not much of a test for seeing a dog's nerves, etc.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

How about this idea of a test.

Owner brings dog to testing area, Chats for a minute or two with a "stranger" (this would be a person familiar with the breed and the test but that the dog has NEVER met), then hands the leash over to the stranger and leaves.

The test is then done with the STRANGER handling the dog.

And the testing would be along the lines of the American Temperament Test Society rules. They give the same exact test to all breeds but score the reactions based on the BREED.

For example, during the Meeting a Stranger exercise a Golden would be expected to move forward and want to greet the person, even pushing it's head under their hands for some petting. A GSD would be expected to acknowledge the stranger presence and allow the stranger to pet them but NOT be overly-familiar. Aloof would be the correct word.









And in the Threatening Stranger exercise a GSD that moved forward and barked, growled or showed aggression at the stranger (while the stranger is actively threatening the dog) would be awarded a passing score. If a Golden did that (and it had not been trained to) then it would fail.

Take the dog out of it's comfort zone (known areas and owner present) and THEN test them. That would be a TRUE test of a dogs temperament.

And, since dogs can have off days just like us, a dog that failed any exercise would be allowed to retake the test (at a later date). If it fails again then it get a Fail. If it passes the second time it has to take the test AGAIN - to be sure which result was the fluke. If it passes the 3rd test it gets a PASS. If it fails the 3rd test it gets a FAIL. End of testing.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> The test is then done with the STRANGER handling the dog.


Not every dog will perform well with the stranger and I don't think it means that the dog has a faulty temperament. Anton wouldn't care to do anything for a stranger with no bond established, he wouldn't even do a simple sit leave alone protecting the stranger from something scary. The stranger would have to use corrections to get response from him and he would actively hate the stranger (I've observed this happened but I was there, it was a session with a trainer, never again).


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangHow about this idea of a test.
> 
> Owner brings dog to testing area, Chats for a minute or two with a "stranger" (this would be a person familiar with the breed and the test but that the dog has NEVER met), then hands the leash over to the stranger and leaves.
> 
> ...


The TT is already _supposedly_ scored based on breed. I took this test at a SchH club I am told is very serious, somewhat militant in how they train. The evaluator was very serious about the test. The items are pass/fail and a passed item is scored 1-10. When Kenya was approached by the aggressive stranger (a huge man wearing a weird hat and cape, yelling at her and pounding a stick) she simply perked up her ears and took a step forward. She was awarded the lowest passing score possible. However, another breed might have scored a 3, 5, 9... doing the same thing she did (ANY sort of fear or hesistation would have failed her, while for other breeds, some fear and hesitation with recovery would have still passed).

I think when the TT is done well, it's about as good as any all-breed test we have. Better than the CGC as far as temperament, I think. There are noise and sight distractions for the CGC but in all the tests I've been through they've been far enough away from the dog to not really make a difference. The TT put an umbrella in the dog's face AND required that the dog show interest and approach it, check it out. Also the gun fire was done behind our backs, less than 5 feet away and it was loud (I think I jumped, Kenya did not). Again for a GSD, nothing more than a flinch was allowed, showing interest was preferred, too much fear or reaction even with recovery would have failed (but again probably passed for another breed).

I like the TT because unlike the CGC you are not supposed to "train" for it. You just step in and do it. I tried a few things just so I was prepared for my dog's reaction (whatever that may be), but not to actually train for it.

I'm not sure of the value of doing it with another handler. During ours I was not allowed to touch, talk to, look at, reward, or correct my dog in any way. I guess if another handler was required, we'd have to decide whether being anxious when left with someone else is "bad". I honestly don't know. Doesn't the BH have exercises where you tether your dog and step away?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: GSD07
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> ...


I agree. In fact, for some breeds, GSD included, a dog who would just go off and perform for a stranger would be considered faulty in my mind.

I understand the idea of having the handler out of the picture to test the dog, so that the dog is working more on his own and without any influence or security coming from the handler. But in that case, tying the dog out would be preferrable than having the dog held by a stranger or expected to comply with the wishes of the stranger.

Overall, while I think this sort of test a fairly decent one to test *some* aspects of nerve in a dog, it's no where near comprehensive enough to be used for breeding evaluation. There are many, many other aspects of temperament that this wouldn't test. Though it would eliminate the spooks and nervebags, it's still not enough to test true GSD temperament.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I hand my dogs off to perfect strangers to be groomed, walk away and let them get on with it. The dog then must allow someone to bathe, brush, clip toenails, and wash ears without my being in the room with him/her. Lots of GSD owners allow strangers to groom their dogs, while other people cannot. I almost see this as a better temperament test than the CGC as it requires the dog to not only allow someone to touch the head/ears and front paws, but it requires that the dog allow someone to clip their nails and clean their ears. But you do not get a cool certificate for that. 

So far I have not been to a show where TTs were performed. So I have not tried that. 

The CGC is only as accurate as the judge, and the judge may be very lenient if they were the dog's trainers all along. I do not see the CGC as a test for breeding, but watching your dog through the steps can give you some added information as to whether you want to breed the dog or not. The CGC is simply a nice certificate program offered by the AKC whose purpose is to get the recipient to the point of beginning on training for titles. I think it is a great program, just not good enough to say that a dog is breedworthy. 

I am always shocked at the vet references in our obedience and CGC classes. "You will want to learn this so you can use it at the vet" or "the purpose of this is to guarantee that a vet or groomer could check over your dog." 

Well, Tori, who I thought should NEVER have passed a CGC or title or anything proved me way wrong when we were at the vets this week. She and Babs had a spat where Babs' teeth pierced Tori's ear. Blood was considerable, and infection was starting before I was able to take her to the vet the next day. This ear was painful. She whimpered when I touched it. But she let the vet touch it and look at it. We decided to leave it be for now, except for the fur on the outside of the ear which should be plucked, and antibiotics started. I chose to muzzle her for the procedure. It took two pulls to get all the fur. The moment the fur was gone I removed the muzzle and she immediately said hello (sniffed and licked) to the gal that plucked it affectionately. 

Because a dog can be groomed or vetted by strangers does not necessarily mean they have a proper temperament which is what the CGC suggests. Is my dog less likely to bite someone? Is she less of a risk to an insurance company? I think so. I think that this is going the wrong way though. We are proving our dog is not likely to be the worst case scenario instead of proving our dogs are the best case scenario. I suppose it is a start.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

The CGC is a minimal test and one that is basically set up to get pet owners to actually DO something with their dogs. 

The BH (at least back when I did it) was a better test than the CGC by far, and did include a section where the dogs were tied with their handlers out of sight, and people and other dogs passed by the tied dogs so that the actions of the tethered dogs could be assessed. 

I would love to see some sort of testing available that truly assessed the temperament of each breed, and then see that test promoted as something that all breeders should have. It's unlikely to happen. I know whenever I've brought that up to the chow breeders they about have a heart attack .. *L*

I think that every breed should be able to prove a certain temperament, a certain amount of trainability, a certain amount of athleticism and a certain amount of natural instinct. The difficulty is finding and implementing the test for each breed. When it comes to the buyer, all they can do is research and either believe or not believe what a breeder has to say to them. It's not easy for people who have some background in dogs and it's even more difficult for those who don't. 

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

> Quote:Breeders can talk the talk, but how do we know they walk the walk? Kennel blindness is prevalent and with how widespread this nation is it can be hard to see dogs work and when we do it may be on their home field. How do we KNOW we're getting a real GSD?


First off I'm not a breeder.. only someone who has trained in SchH for the last 3 years.. but over the years I have seen and learned a lot.. I don't know if we need a new test.. I think it's fine how it is.. if anything, put SchH back to the way it was, back in the day..

I've been thinking about this question for a while now...

I believe it's still a good test for breedworthiness.. For those breeders that are using it for what it was intended, using it correctly and objectively.. If the dog has a genetic weakness it will be exposed somewhere along the process, between all the training and trialing.. 

It's the breeders/individuals that aren't using it objectively or don't want to see the/their dogs for what they really are and think JUST because a dog passes (or because they have a male and a female) that it means it is breed worthy or should even be bred.. 

Those folks that are afraid to put any pressure on the dog or stress the dog or take the dog out of it's comfort zones, that's were the break down is.. That's were the faults lie.

Also there's still some really good judges out there! That want the breed to be what it's supposed to be.. to pressure the dogs in a trial, make the dog earn his points..


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

Also another good way to test dogs... FEMA USAR! That will separate the boys from the men.. 

Get your dog on a rubble pile where it's unstable, unsure footing, narrow beams or concrete slabs, gas, oil smells, etc.. Talk about testing nerve, drive and courage!


----------



## debbiebrown (Apr 13, 2002)

Leesa,
that is a good idea, but not sure that would work for all dogs in the nerve dept.
i have one that would pass with flying colors with different surfaces, noises etc, but probably wouldn't with strangers/ certain people, and different situations with dogs etc. 
and these inconsistances i see alot in the gsd today. they may do fine in some areas but not others, so what really makes a true gsd, or is there really one?

my question is: especially with working lines....Are these dogs good one the field but in reality public misfits? or is it truely a matter of total proven linage?

debbie


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: I have one that would pass with flying colors with different surfaces, noises etc, but probably wouldn't with strangers/ certain people, and different situations with dogs etc.


I am using this quote to make a little statement here about GSDs. There are a huge number of people who simply do not understand GSDs, particularly young ones. The dogs who will protect you for real, sometimes react to what people around them are doing. People look so hard at the dog's behavior, they completely miss the signals that strangers may be sending to the dog. Some strangers are "stranger" than others, particularly in a dog's eyes. Dogs are all about body language and I can assure you, the majority of people out there send the wrong signals to the dogs , mostly because they are afraid or at the very least tentative around a GSD. I use the same body language I see some of these "strangers" doing when I try to get a dog to bark at me when training protection. 
Managing your GSD and recognizing when the people may be triggering a reaction in your dog is a very important part of raising a GSD properly. It requires know how and patience because some of these dogs just need to mature and the people you expose them to need to be confident. It is not a case of nerves as much as it can be a case of suspicion made worse by frightened people. As for other dogs, that to me is a pretty simple fix that has to do again, with management and how you introduce dogs into your dog's environment.

I don't know what is going on with Debbie's dog, just commenting on a very common problem I have seen over and over and OVER . This is the number one problem I see with my training clients who own aggressive breeds.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

Great post Anne!


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

What do you all think about these examples:
1.) Dog has no obvious environmental issues. Walks through a crowd on a loose leash. Can be walked by a stranger (but will watch for owner-no focus on new person holding leash). However, will bite a stranger if reached for.
2.) Stranger is given the leash. Dog is great. Beautiful focus while heeling, follows commands, etc.
Are both correct? One or the other? and Why?


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I have talked to enough people and heard descriptions of what is happening with their dogs, only to spot all KINDS of issues with the handling of those dogs and the behavior of the people, once I was in a position to see it with my own eyes. There are too many variables to consider concerning the people in your examples to comment on a Bulletin board.

There are so many things that people do that is just downright confusing to dogs, I could not even begin to say whether anything that involves people is "correct" without watching it with my own eyes. Most people simply are not at all aware of the things they are doing. It is all about blaming the dog and dissecting every little thing the dog does. Much easier than looking at themselves I guess but mainly I think they do not realize the impact they can have on a dog when they feel uncomfortable.

I will just ask people to consider the following and really think it over and be honest with how you would react in these situations.

You are walking down the street with a friend of yours and are approached by a stranger. When he gets in front of you, he suddenly stops, seems to freeze and stares at you. Would you be disturbed or maybe frightened by it? Would you be thinking about a way to get the **** out of there in a hurry? Would you reach for your can of mace?

You are walking down the street and you run into a friend of yours who is with someone you do not know. Your friend introduces you and you extend your hand to shake hers. She starts to extend her hand toward you but she suddenly stops and holds her hand very still. What feeling would come over you? 

Ever meet those people who just stand too close and are completely within your "space"? Does it make you uncomfortable?

These are things we expect dogs to put up with all the time. Yes, some breeds don't notice it because they have not been bred to have aggression/suspicion. Normally, if a dog reacts to all the weirdness, their handlers punish them or get upset. The next time people come up, the handler is a little nervous and the dog feels it. The dog then starts to think there is something wrong and maybe needs to defend the person. ...etc etc etc.

The way people extend their hands to pet a dog, most of the time involves a slight hesitation or a full stop. That smell my hand BS right in the middle of reaching for the dog is one such example. If the dog wants to be pet by a stranger, he will indicate it, if not, people should leave him alone. When you try to pet a dog, you have to be confident and just do it in one movement, no hesitating in mid reach, even a tiny hesitation a dog sees. I don't know many people who can do that with a strange dog, therefore, they should either wait for the dog to initiate something or leave the dog alone. You can't fool a dog, they see your body language. You have to really watch the people sometimes to see it. Mostly it is very subtle but the dogs do not miss subtle, so, IMO, it is not an option for you to miss it.

Police talk about getting a bad feeling sometimes when they pull a person over. They are not psychic, they see the body language of the person who knows he just got caught. The police officer then becomes very cautious. They recognize it and it puts them on alert. Dogs do the same thing when people don't act normal. Dogs do not understand why people are afraid of them and it can make a suspicious dog react. They see the insecurity in the people and it disturbs them, especially the younger dogs who many times lack the maturity to deal with it.

I worked at a kennel when I was a teenager. I had literally no fear of being bitten. Whenever there was a problem with an aggressive or fearful dog where he had to be removed from a run, they called me to do it. Why? Because I could reach for the dog's collar with no hesitation and the dogs saw that I was not a threat because I was not afraid. I could actually reach over a dog's snarling face and take him calmly by the collar. Never once got bit. Can I do that now? No, I think too much now that I am older and I know I might hesitate and then I would be bitten. 

Of course there are dogs who don't have good nerves and can behave in a similar fashion but there are other indicators, the WAY they do it, how fast they recover etc that give you clues to what the dog is about.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Anne,
Thanks for giving such a thoughtful post. It just seems to me there are so very many ideas of a "true" temperament. At one club, a dog was turned down because "he would bite for real." At another club, handler was told to keep working him, he might have strong aggression. 

I have handled another person's dog where I literally was able to just pick up the leash and go.

There was a dog a few years ago that was turned down for police dept duties because he broke his down when they tried to land a helicopter on him. Or I hear people say, "he'd jump off of a cliff going after his ball." For myself, I think those dogs that jump off of cliffs or allow copters to be placed on their heads might be just a wee bit nutso

Sometimes maybe people get so wrapped up in how to raise the perfect schutzhund dog that they seem to forget they are dogs.


----------



## debbiebrown (Apr 13, 2002)

alot of good ideas here and advice!

i guess like people all dogs are differnent and see the world differently.......i do think a truely stable well breed dog, well trained and socialized wouldn't have much of a problem with anything having strong nerves and confidence enough to be relaxed unless otherwise called for. yes, the gsd would tend to protect the owner in a true emergency situation, but a stable dog would know the difference vs a nervous or weak nerved dog., who would percieve even a non aggressive issue a threat.

there just seems to be alot of personality inconsistancies, and looking through all the posts here throughout the years plus being around alot of them myself you wonder what a true gsd personality really is., i have had my share of gsd's over the years, and the most confident gsd i ever had was extremely dominant. nothing ever bothered this dog. an aggressive dog could come running out from no where totally freaking out at him, and he could have cared less. either that or i percieved his personality wrong and he was the dumbest dog i ever had!









some of them seem to be:
overly suspicious
weak nerved or fear issues

these are just a few.....

debbie


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I wasn't really making a comment on temperament, I am talking about how people can really make a mess of things, even for good dogs. People just do not stop and think long enough about what they are doing when they raise, handle or simply approach a dog. Yes, some dogs are too unsure and have issues but if the people understand their dog better, even the weak dogs can gain more confidence.

Some SchH people like a certain type of dog, so, they work really hard to try bring that side of the dog out. They like it and the dogs also know they like it and that's where things go. In SchH, there are people who just are not used to working dogs with aggression and most do not know how to work with it. SchH protection work used to look alot more real than it does now because the dogs did not look at it like a game. I was just talking to a friend of mine last night about how so many helpers lean their face way down at the dogs now trying to get them to look at their face instead of the sleeve. I don't recall very many people doing that 25 years ago, they would have had an eyebrow removed. So, some clubs get intimidated by a GSD who is maybe acting like a GSD compared to a dog who is playing. That's what they like so they might tell you the later is a better dog when maybe that's not really the case. Being in a SchH club does not mean people understand dogs, that is for sure.

In all the years I have trained dogs, the one thing that makes the most difference as far as how the dog's behave is the PEOPLE. The one thing I have changed and adjusted the most over the years is ME . Even weak dogs can become so much better when their owners understand the dog and learn to look at things more from their dog's view.
I can't recall a dog I could not handle. In fact the dog's behave better with me handling them than they do with their owners. Why? Because I know what I am doing, I am confident handling the dogs and the dogs feel better about the situation as a result. So, chances are, you could do that with the dog you mentioned for a similar reason. Dogs pick up on stuff like that immediately.
Some handlers are simply too nervous, not confident in the way they handle the dog and leave the choices made, up to the dog. That's just never really a good thing. Then they get upset with the dog for making that choice. Or they are constantly badgering their dogs. Dogs respond to their owners nerves, certainly people understand that in dog trials but they don't seem to make the connection elsewhere. How composed you are, does make a difference in how your dog views things. They are paying attention to you even if it doesn't seem like it.

Personally, I like a dog who people might never guess would protect me but when there is something threatening, the dog does not hesitate to respond. However, I have seen these same dogs, when younger, react to behavior from people that was simply not normal. Sometimes, I wonder about dogs who don't respond more than the ones who do. That's how weird people can be around dogs.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal That's how weird people can be around dogs.










I love it. Unfortunately, I probably fall in the weird category sometimes, but I will try to keep an open mind and learn!


----------



## debbiebrown (Apr 13, 2002)

true statement that these dogs are so in tune with their owners they will pick up on everything. i think most of us seasoned gsd owners know that. but that being a given, doesn't mean sometimes we aren't aware of the things we are doing and not realizing it. thats where good trainers, ones that truely know what they are doing with this breed of dog come into play.,









but, then again, you can do everything right from the very beginning, and still always have issues. tigers don't change their stripes, so again this is where the experts come in to deal with the specifics, its called management of the specific issues at hand.

weird, yea maybe people can be weird with the dogs, but alot of trainers can screw up a dog too.....

debbie


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

This past weekend I went to a SAR Groups meeting and I took Diabla with me (she's not a SAR dog, but I couldn't leave her alone in Santiago for 4 days and those are the advantages of being one of the bosses) During the weekend she met more than fifty persons she has never seen before from the other SAR teams and she was always social with everybody, as she usually is. 

We slept in a prison (I can say I've been in jail now) and I could tell there was an intern in the proximities only because of Diabla's body language. Only once she barked, but every time there was one of them she got tense, ears forward, tail moving slowly, with all the "I'm watching you" attitude. And I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one sending bad vibes to her because they made fresh bread and gave the first bake of the morning to us and cooperated everytime time we needed to borrow something. They were friendly, curious, asked questions and I have no problem talking to them and chatting for a while and making my own question about them (enrichment experience, BTW) even the interns working on the furniture factory made me three apports for free







so I don't think she could had been reading suspicion from me. Diabla just knew there was an "us" and a "they". My theory is that the SAR people was always sending "dog friendly vibes" while the interns have their own good reason to not to feel comfortable next to a German Shepherd.


----------



## Ceph (Mar 28, 2007)

This thread is great! I really like the discussion points...alot of neat ideas.

Maybe this is me being crazy....but I would like to see an independant organization for the herding/working breeds (kelpies, belgians, dutchies, GSDs, WSDs, Beac's, Bouvies, etc... (maybe even Rotties)) that was focused on the total _versatility_ of these breeds.

I'd like to see an organization like this offer different levels of pass fail exams...an initial instinct exam that would be tracking, protection, obedience, and herding(tending), and then perhaps exams up to five or so levels for each of these disciplines....and perhaps have alternative disciplines not included in the initial instinct exam such as carting or sledding or cattle/4-sheep herding or agility.

I know alot of different org's offer each of these...but I think it would be nice for a group of people dedicated to all around versatility to be able to get together and put an organization like this together. The instinct exam would be nice because it shows all those basic drives important to the shepherd, and then you can specialize in one or more of disciplines following that, depending on what your dog is better at.

Sooo, you would start out with the basic instinct test, which would have an obedience section similiar to a BH, a Tracking instinct exam that could be similiar to the SDA SAR instinct exam, A herding instinct exam similiar to what the AHBA has (only with tending) and a protection instinct exam that would probably have to be made up....dogs would probably have to wait until 18-24 months to be tested.

Following that you have five different levels of each of the disciplines, plus other sport exams. The herding exam level 5 could be something like the HGH exam, the protection level 5 could be something like a SchHIII protection phase (the level one could be like an SDA prot alert test maybe?), the obedience could be something like a SchHIII obedience phase, and the tracking level five could be something like a combination between a SAR dog test and the FH2. You could also add on some levels of testing for sledding, agility, and carting...and also probably service work. I wouldnt mind seeing a functional structure test/exam as well...not so much a conformation exam as an exam that shows the dog is capable of performing (maybe a combination of the AD, 6 foot straight wall, and other physical/agility tests....kind of like the 100 day tests that warmblood stallions have to go through...only....you know....not 100 days).

Haha -- it's probably a crazy idea, but I'm a crazy chick....I think one of the reasons I like this idea so much is because it doesnt really back on into a corner with one discipline or another....it kind of puts everything out there in one place for everyone to compete in.

~Cate


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

Going back to the 3 phases of SchH, I think one of the ways sport and the need to score points to make it a sport, has changed it from a useful breed test is the overuse of prey drive in training.

Looking at the philosophies of the 3 phases what are they testing? One thing that all 3 are constant in testing is the dog's ability to work with the owner as a partner - the relationship - with the owner as the boss but also respecting the dog. 

IMHO, it is only the tracking phase that should be testing prey drive. Obedience and protection were never meant to test prey drive.

All 3 phases were meant to test natural drives of the dog and how breeding can channel those natural drives into useful traits for a working dog.

The protection phase was meant to test the protection instinct of a dog primarily, and how that instinct can be channeled by working with the handler toward controlling a "bad guy" in a way that was safe for the owner, the dog and even the bad guy. Its basically about a civilized apprehension of a stranger that has crossed into your property that's why it starts with the hold and bark. Stranger tries to escape, dog chases and holds, owner commands a release and a guard. So forth and so on. Nowhere, is prey drive supposed to be a factor. Of course, these days, training is mainly in prey drive especially with puppies. The sleeve has been turned into a prey object when it was supposed to be just something that was wrapped around the helper's arm so he didn't get injured.

Obedience is a test of the wild canine's natural pack drive and how it can be channeled to make a dog perform unnatural behavior because the dog-owner relationship takes precedence. Again, nowhere is prey drive supposed to be a factor. Of course these days, the way obedience is trained is through the use of toys mimicking a prey animal and as a reward for prey drive behavior.

Tracking as a test is actually directly related to herding. Its not about the nose of the dog. Its about the brain behind the nose.
Both are prey drive based. Tracking prey is obvious prey drive behavior, as is circling a flock in herding.
What's more important, both test the dog's ability to control its prey drive in a situation of delayed gratification and within the context of the primacy of the dog-owner relationship. The prey drive being tested is not all about find prey, see prey, chase prey. In a way, it is civilizing that drive so that the handler and the dog basically fine tune it for the intended purpose of tracking or herding. A prey drive that can not be fine tuned in such a manner is useless for a working dog.

The motivation for the use of prey drive in training is to get a certain picture which is rewarded with points. In addition, prey drive can mask weak nerves and temperament in the very controlled environment of the training field and schutzhund field. To make it worse, a touch of weak nerve or edginess can even be used by a skillful trainer to give a picture of a drivey dog in obedience or protection that is rewarded by sports points.

The consequence is an overemphasis on that one drive while losing the balance in the other drives. The consequence on the breed is unbalanced dogs. The German showlines are actually more guilty of this than the working lines because prey drive has been used to be able to breed dogs that can attain schutzhund titles for breeding even when weak in protection drives, pack drives, nerves and civilized prey drive.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

AMEN!!!!


----------



## TxTech (Mar 29, 2008)

Sorry, this post will be a little off course. But when I read DianaM's post that started this thread, I thought, "Yeah! How do those of us less educated people know we are getting a true GSD?!" 

I felt as though her point was in asking how can the average person sort through all the letters and numbers and gobbledygook that follows dogs' names and recognize what kind of dog they are actually getting?! How can someone like ME know he/she is getting a true GSD? What can I do to know I am avoiding this situation:



> Originally Posted By: DianaMWe have people who do enough research to know that a dog should be titled and hip cleared yet they see that flashy showline breeder with dogs that have miles of titles when in reality those titles were half-a'd or bought. Or someone finds a breeder who works their dogs so they are earning their titles but they're just points dogs and overly intense at that.


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

Find a breeder that you trust (face-to-face not Internet face). The question of how was answered in your previous threads. Find one that has both the father and mother of the puppy you are considering for purchase. If both of them look and behave like the kind of GSD you are looking for, then for you that is a "true GSD." (note: this is not a general response to everybody, it is a specific response to HBH based on what she wrote in previous threads of what she is looking for.)


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Quote:Find one that has both the father and mother of the puppy you are considering for purchase.


Many excellent breeders use outside studs. Some of them use outside studs exclusively. IF I like/admire a breeder's dogs, goals & breeding program, I'll be comfortable with her choosing the appropriate stud & I don't need to personally meet him. Background info, pedigree, reasons for choosing that particular dog & pictures are all appreciated, but every breeder I've known is more than willing to supply those.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

In reference to HBH's question: I have found a breeder and with the upcoming litter, the pedigree of both are listed on the site. The sire isn't on site. I then went and did a search on the sire. Wow, what a dog he is! I will be very fortunate to get a pup from this breeding and everything I read about him is positive on what a "true GSD" really is. And the female will definately compliment him. So really if you do your homework, you can take a pass or find a treasure.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think it may be even better if the breeder does not own the stud dog. 

If the breeder has a lot of dogs, then it is likely that she has a dog that complements their bitch both in pedigree and physically. Otherwise, it may be that a much better dog for a particular bitch may live with another person. 

If you are purchasing a pup from someone who has just the dam, ask to see a picture of the sire, and or ask the breeder why she chose that male. Then judge by their answers.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: selzerI think it may be even better if the breeder does not own the stud dog.
> 
> If the breeder has a lot of dogs, then it is likely that she has a dog that complements their bitch both in pedigree and physically. Otherwise, it may be that a much better dog for a particular bitch may live with another person.
> 
> If you are purchasing a pup from someone who has just the dam, ask to see a picture of the sire, and or ask the breeder why she chose that male. Then judge by their answers.


I agree. Actually, it's a big red flag for me when a breeder has multiple females and always uses the same stud for all of them.... usually a stud the same breeder owns. No male, no matter how wonderful, is the best match for any and every female. So a breeder always using their own stud tells me that cost and convenience may be higher on their priority list than finding the best breeding match.


----------

