# Breeders, since no dog is perfect, how do you...



## mycobraracr

Breeders, since no dog is perfect, how do you decide what is a disqaulifying trait? Something can be fixed with the proper pairing? Or something you are just going to let slide? 

Does this question make sense?


----------



## d4mmo

I think it comes down to the breed standard. 
The SV uses a breed survey which will provide you with class 1 (much better than average gsd) or class 2 (better than average GSD). If the dog does not place it can not be bread under the SV.

Some issues are a disqualified fault because they are genetic. Eg bad temperament, fearful, down ear. 
Others such as short upper arm, short muzzle, 1cm over or under can be corrected by selective breeding.


----------



## lhczth

Depends on the female I am breeding. Certain things like bad health, joints, lack of sound temperament, lack of vitality, missing teeth (for my lines I have to be careful with that), major conformation faults, missing testicle, etc will disqualify a male, period. Then for me there are certain things I will not sacrifice and certain pedigrees I won't touch. Then the rest is female dependent (genotype and phenotype).


----------



## mycobraracr

Thanks for the reply. I'm looking for something deeper than what a superficial breed survey will tell you. A reputable breeder is out there working their dogs, pushing their dogs, so they know their dogs in and out. They know what makes their dogs tick. They know their dogs strengths and weaknesses. That's what I'm trying to get at. When you know your dogs weaknesses, where do you say "I can fix that" and when do you say "not breeding this dog"? 

I know this forum has some great breeders out there. Cliff, Chris, Lee, Lisa, Carmen, Anne (in no specific order) I'm really looking for your input here.


----------



## lhczth

I was looking at your question through the eyes of someone looking for a male for breeding, but pretty much the same would apply to my females (except the testicle issue). I will say I have gotten very good at picking my replacement females since my first litter. Missing teeth in Duri (not enough to disqualify, but enough to disqualify her for me) and borderline hips in C'Varda. And if LB had had a B/T sister I probably would have kept her instead. LOL


----------



## mycobraracr

lhczth said:


> I was looking at your question through the eyes of someone looking for a male for breeding, but pretty much the same would apply to my females (except the testicle issue). I will say I have gotten very good at picking my replacement females since my first litter. Missing teeth in Duri (not enough to disqualify, but enough to disqualify her for me) and borderline hips in C'Varda. And if LB had had a B/T sister I probably would have kept her instead. LOL


Thanks for your input. Yes I am looking at it as someone looking at both a female to be bred or male to stud. Since my wife and I want to breed(not for another 5 years or so), I'm trying to figure out what is overlooked because of pairing and what makes a dog a no go. I know the type of GSD I want to produce, what I'm finding very difficult is how to get it. I feel there is going to be some trial and error involved, but I'm trying to limit that as much as possible. Health screening is an obvious factor that's easy to see. I'm looking at personality... quirks we'll call them.


----------



## lhczth

Never sacrifice nerve and test them on more than just the field. Grips are genetic and, yes, they say more about the dog than just that they are good for sport. I also don't want to sacrifice work ethic. Life isn't fun working with dogs that don't want to work with me. I have accepted dogs that didn't show super high prey/toy drive because I know my lines and it seems to be pretty easy to find in this day and age. I constantly have to compensate for hunt and what makes for pretty sport tracking. Since I have high hunt in my lines I can look for dogs that will bring me some of that natural pretty sport tracking. 

Something else I am very picky about is strong mother lines. Everyone always looks at the males, but your quality comes from your females. Never sacrifice on the quality and strength of your bitch or it will come back to bite you.


----------



## lhczth

And to clarify what I am saying about the mother lines; not just the female in front of you, but her mother and her mother and her mother and the sire's mother line should all bring strength and be producers of what you want. I look for the same in the males I use for breeding.


----------



## GatorDog

lhczth said:


> Never sacrifice nerve and test them on more than just the field. Grips are genetic and, yes, they say more about the dog than just that they are good for sport. I also don't want to sacrifice work ethic. Life isn't fun working with dogs that don't want to work with me. I have accepted dogs that didn't show super high prey/toy drive because I know my lines and it seems to be pretty easy to find in this day and age. I constantly have to compensate for hunt and what makes for pretty sport tracking. Since I have high hunt in my lines I can look for dogs that will bring me some of that natural pretty sport tracking.
> 
> Something else I am very picky about is strong mother lines. Everyone always looks at the males, but your quality comes from your females. Never sacrifice on the quality and strength of your bitch or it will come back to bite you.


I'm not a breeder, but this way of thinking is what I think I would base my opinions on.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

I am curious about this too. I heard from a vendor that brings dogs from Holland that many breeders there do not work females or even test them yet produce nice dogs. He saw a very strong male that came out of a female that was in his words a POS. She was just bred for the lines she carried.


----------



## lhczth

It isn't unusual to base a program totally on the strength of the male genetics. Manfred Hyne did this with his herding lines. The female, of course, in Germany had to be titled and not a POS, but he wanted her mostly as an oven for his males' genetics. I work females and come from the horse/livestock world where female genetics are important. I am also looking for more than 1 or 2 good dogs in a litter so want to stack the deck in my favor.


----------



## lhczth

I am also looking to build a program and not just produce puppies. Weakness begets weakness and whether in the first generation or in the next, it will come back to bite you. 

I also think many breeders are still willing to heavily cull their litters (and I mean cull in the original context). As I said above, I would rather stack the deck in my favor and increase the percentages of very good pups in each litter. I am not happy with 1 or 2 good dogs in a litter of 8.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

So what if you get an average/ weaker dog from two strong dogs. She produces some nice pups, do you see her weakness appearing again down the road? What if you were using her to access a male a gen or two back. Then continued the line in his direction?


----------



## mycobraracr

Thanks for the responses everyone. I agree with putting my money on a strong female. I've worked with a few breeders and seen some pairings where I wasn't a huge fan of the male, but the female was stellar. Those litters still produced some very nice dogs. 

We all say we won't compromise on nerve, but at the same time every dog has a breaking point or something. So how do we decide what is acceptable or not? 

What's making me think about this is, recently we were evaluating a young female. Not on a field, in a place she had only been a few times. There were lots of environmental stressors as well as mental and physical pressure from the helper/decoy. No equipment used, so just dog and decoy. The dog was pushed to what I think was her breaking point. She didn't break, but I think if we took it a bit further she would have. Ultimately who knows until we go too far. At this point it's not a disqualifying factor to me because of age. Did she fail? Not really as she didn't back down but I think it was coming. Now this response in a dog a year or two older and I don't think I would breed her. Now this particular dog isn't getting bred anyway, it just got me thinking.


----------



## lhczth

A weak female is probably not the same as a POS.  It is also all in perspective. I tend to like very strong dominant in your face type bitches, but would consider one that isn't as much of a "bitch" if she still showed me strength, good work ethics and sound nerves especially if I know her genetics. 

Even the best planned out litters will not produce 100% top working prospects, but they should be producing a high percentage (80% plus?) of above average dogs. 

Agree that all dogs have a breaking point. For me it would be how they handle the stressors we put them under on a day to day basis not if we can test them one time and see if we can break them. Stress over time, day in and day out, can start to show up in how a dog handles certain aspects of training just like it can in a human. It can show weakness without breaking the dog. How a dog handles stress, too, can be age dependent. I would no way put the same amount of stress on my 15 month old female that I would put on her 5.5 year old mother.


----------



## wolfstraum

Female Family is the foundation of breeding for me. It is all about balance, stability and solid nerve. I have 2 female families....one I sort of lost....I have the resources to get it back, but haven't done so yet because of timing and some other issues. Titles are great, but it is the training that tells you about your female. 

What is a deal breaker for me? Temperament/Nerves/Stability. I have seen so many titled dogs I would never breed or want a puppy from. I don't care what their pedigree is or how good looking they are....if I see holes in those three aspects, I would rule the dog out for breeding no matter what titles or credentials they have. I have trained or watched all of my breeding females train. I know them. When you train 3 generations of dogs, you figure out what you have and understand it. I place a very very high value on biddability and strength. As I do not have access to a club easily, and club members that buy pups and train, I have a bit of a quandary in the future. 

So far I have been fairly lucky in physical faults....few coats, teeth missing and no monorchids. A few who have not passed OFA were very very ambiguous to even the vet's taking them, and probably should have been resubmitted or sent to the SV. 

Things I can deal with in a female are minor structural issues, I have had a G female produce 2 V rated and several SG progeny. I have had FCI B hips produce OFA Excellent hips....all things can be balanced out in careful selection of breeding partners. Grips, food drive and even ball drive are other things I can look to improve if needed via a male. I basically want the male to complement the female by having a character and temperament as close to her as possible and for the pair to compensate for any faults in the other. My first Sch3 female had little ball drive but fantastic hunt drive and food drive...her progeny had great ball drive coming from their sire.

I also want to see consistency in litters, a female who would produce poor nerve, timid pups, physically compromised pups, would not stay in my program. I had one very very very nice bitch, great temperament, who produced 2 dwarf puppies. She was spayed and got a nice pet home. I know the chances of it happening again were slim, but I could not bring myself to breed her again. 

I do have a young male. He has the temperament I strive for. He has the potential for top sport and he could easily be a very strong LE dog. As I am spinning in circles here physically for training/training opportunities, he is now with the owner of his sire to be titled and Koered. I have gotten very very positive feedback on the dog from quite a few accomplished sportspeople including an SV judge who was in the top 10 at this years BSP. So hopefully, he will be able to be incorporated in my breeding program - there are already a few owners planning on using him in the future.

Lee


----------



## mycobraracr

wolfstraum said:


> I basically want the male to complement the female by having a character and temperament as close to her as possible and for the pair to compensate for any faults in the other.



Thanks for your input. 

I find this interesting. I would have thought you would want the male's temperment and character almost opposite from the females to try and fill in the gaps so to speak. I guess, if the female is already well rounded and balanced then a male who is also balanced would be key. 

Lisa, the dog in my scenario was only 12 months or so. That's why I said I'm not overly worried yet. The intent wasn't to run her, but rather a test to see where she was at. She recovered nicely and didn't hold a grudge. I liked that. Like I said, it just got me thinking. Watching a dog on a trial field doesn't really tell you much about it's true character.


----------



## wolfstraum

mycobraracr said:


> Thanks for your input.
> 
> I find this interesting. I would have thought you would want the male's temperment and character almost opposite from the females to try and fill in the gaps so to speak. I guess, if the female is already well rounded and balanced then a male who is also balanced would be key.



I guess it depends on what you are trying to produce....If you are trying to produce something very close to what you have, you want to not throw in opposite traits....I am very happy with my females and want to keep dogs as close to them as I can in my program. 

Am hoping for a 4th generation soon...for my next female...

Lee


----------



## Vandal

The only thing I will offer on topics such as this is to tell you to keep working dogs as the helper. You will figure out more that way than anyone can tell you. I worked/trained dogs as the helper, titled my first dog and trialed at a high level with him before I ever bred a litter. After ten years of nothing but dogs, seminars and trying to learn to be the best helper I could be ....along with watching my friend, who is a true dog person with a vast amount of knowledge in that regard, breed her dogs, I bred my first litter from bloodlines I knew because I had been working them. 
I have worked so many dogs from different lines and the memories are still in my head. Some of the dogs I worked are in the ninth generation of my dogs. The best breeder I know and a few others say, "it's just a feeling you get" about what will work. That feeling is based on hands on knowledge of the dogs.


----------



## cliffson1

As an aside, I think that people who breed with emphasis on males primarily will produce some top individual dogs,( all things being equal), I think breeders that put emphasis on female lines produce better litters.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Thats good info.
I have only met two bitches I really liked and would consider great dogs. I would love to start with a super dominant intense female. Sadly I have found most of the bitches I meet and work to be too soft for my taste even the ones that are supposedly strong. Is it true some lines tend to throw better females then males?


----------



## katieliz

Lisa, that's what my old german grandfather always said, it's all about the quality of your bitches. Your post brought up some great old memories.


----------



## d4mmo

Genetically speaking both bitch and sire are just as important.

There's two theories.
1) have a nice bitch and breed her to the best stud available, chance are the litter will be better than the bitch . I know the local police have been doing this with great results. (This is the easiest way)

2) Search for a great bitch and breed her to a similarly traited male. This works when breeding for type.


----------



## cliffson1

Sometimes, extremely hard females are not best producers or mothers, also hard tough female to hard tough male can also result in disaster. Just an observation, I'm sure it doesn't make sense, but its something I have seen occur.


----------



## Moriah

cliffson1 said:


> Sometimes, extremely hard females are not best producers or mothers, also hard tough female to hard tough male can also result in disaster. Just an observation, I'm sure it doesn't make sense, but its something I have seen occur.


How much does the bitch's mothering skills factor into puppy temperament? Or is temperament going to be strictly genetics?


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

cliffson1 said:


> Sometimes, extremely hard females are not best producers or mothers, also hard tough female to hard tough male can also result in disaster. Just an observation, I'm sure it doesn't make sense, but its something I have seen occur.


Actually you are not the first I have heard this from. I have heard its something to do with testosterone.


----------



## mycobraracr

This thread popped in my head again. I re-read it and appreciate all the participation. There is some great info on here. 

It was mentioned that dogs should be tested in other ways besides what they see on the field. So what are some things you guys look for? How are you testing the dogs off the field?


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

I go lots of places, boats, travel, camping, power tools, whatever. I think all these things show what the dog is if you have the ability and objectivity to see. 
I have personally found that what you see on the field is generally consistent with what you see off. However, the reverse is definitely not true. For me protection remains the best test of a dogs nerve period.


----------



## mycobraracr

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> I go lots of places, boats, travel, camping, power tools, whatever. I think all these things show what the dog is if you have the ability and objectivity to see.
> I have personally found that what you see on the field is generally consistent with what you see off. However, the reverse is definitely not true. For me protection remains the best test of a dogs nerve period.



I do think the field gives you an idea of nerve, but not the whole picture. A lot of dogs now days grow up on a field. Grow up with a decoy doing decoy things. They are conditioned to it. I've seen a large number of dogs who look great on a field, yet won't walk on slick floors, enter dark rooms, or who won't work in a different room from their handler. 

My wife and I always say we like to live life with our dogs. We take at least one with us just about everywhere we go. To run errands, work, or wherever. With our puppies, our goal is to take them to at least one new place every week. This not only let's us see of they have any issues, but also let's them experience everything so that there is less of a chance something will bother them. 

I'm just curious what others do to test their dogs besides the trial/training field.


----------



## martemchik

The only reason I don’t like this type of discussion is that it almost makes it sound like the “day to day” stuff is more important than training and trialing, and unfortunately, in today’s environment, most people don’t train and trial their breeding dogs. The day to day interactions with a normal environment is very easy to do, and if the breeder is small with just a few breeding females their dogs are more than likely treated like pets and do things that most pets do. I think the breeders that have “kennel dogs” are few and far between when we’re talking about a reputable breeder. I'm seeing too many BH and "ready for IPO1" breeding announcements, and a lot of people really focusing on how great a pet the dog is more than anything else to make a sale.

On top of all that, you’ll more than likely never hear about or see an environmental issue even if the breeder finds out that the dog has one. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true. If you’ve spent thousands of dollars training a dog, you’re not about to tell people it doesn’t like tile flooring if the dog is truly exceptional on the training field (again, if it even makes it that far).

We’re currently raising a litter, and have literally every type of flooring available for them to walk on. Hardwood, carpet, linoleum, tile…it’s all in the house. They’ll be exposed to concrete and grass and to other surfaces like metal which they’ll probably never have to walk on in their life, but it’s fun to see how they’ll respond to the change. Just yesterday we removed the whelping box and put them on a different surface. Fun to see 2 week old pups not caring at all that their environment has been completely flipped upside down. We’re also going to try to expose them to a lot of other environments, while keeping them safe, depending on what is available to us weather wise. The puppies that we hold back, they’ll see a ton of environments. I have no reservations about taking my dogs everywhere I possibly can. At that point…it’s about being truthful to yourself, staying true to your morals/convictions (in regards to breeding quality animals), and really being able to be objective about the reaction you are observing. The last part is what most people have a problem with, and that’s the kind of information that I never expect to get from a breeder, just wouldn’t make sense financially in the long run.


----------



## mycobraracr

I'm not saying training and titling isn't important. I do believe it is a balance though. A dog that can't work a field is gone in my house, but equally, a dog that I can't take to work with me to hang out in a shop all day is also gone. So that's why I think off the field work is so important. Not to mention, look at all the failures of dogs that are sent through PD testing. Many dogs look strong doing the same things they do everyday, but send them into a building, up stairs and have the dog working a decoy on the edge of a loft with the handler still outside or a few rooms away. You may see something different. I personally look for balance in dogs. I like a dog that's capable of anything I throw at it. Any breeder that tells me their dogs are perfect, is a breeder I will not buy from. Every dog has a fault. That's why pairing is so important is it not? So if a breeder tells me their dog is perfect, then that tells me either they have not tested the dog thoroughly, or they are not honest with their results. That's just my take on it.


----------



## martemchik

I guess if we’re talking unlimited time and resources there’s plenty people can do. But what I see is that people aren’t even willing to put in the time to get their dog through an IPO1 title, so I don’t expect them to take time to throw their dog in other situations (like the one you mentioned). On top of that, the information gained from those types of scenarios doesn’t really affect most buying decisions. The breeder also risks finding out something negative, or negatively impacting a dog for an actual trial scenario that does have a fairly large impact on buying decisions in today’s market. For me though…in training, the “trial picture” is definitely pushed to the limit. A dog does see different scenarios that aren’t exactly what it sees in the trial. A dog gets tested plenty…unless the handler doesn’t want that. But most of the people that I respect in this sport definitely push their dog past the scenarios of an IPO3.

You talk about pairing being important…well say you find out the bitch has environmental issues…doesn’t like floor X. But is matched to a very strong nerved male who has no issues. Does that matter? If you know the bitch has problems, why would you purchase that puppy and take the risk that your puppy might have the same issue as the bitch? I wouldn’t. So my expectation is that a breeder really wouldn’t divulge that type of information to a potential buyer. Should they? Absolutely. But when money is involved, people tend to hold back information and yes, the super ethical, never do anything wrong breeders can feel free to chime in at this point telling us all about how they will tell a potential buyer everything and anything about their breeding pair because they’re god’s gift to GSD. And for anyone wondering, I would never breed a dog with environmental issues. I believe these dogs need to be pets first, and a dog that isn't stable in normal day to day life isn't one that should be bred...no matter how great it might be on the field. Truthfully, I probably would never get to even training that dog to that level if I noticed that at a young age it's having "day to day" issues.

I truly do believe that the dogs that are amazing on the trial field (national and regional level) and yet terrible in the house or terrible in a different environment are few and far between. Those types of dogs are seen once or twice and then someone with an agenda decides to spread the information as if it applies to all dogs. It’s basically the same thing that occurs with the show dogs and “roach backs” or “frog legs,” a dozen dogs ruin it for the whole population. The upper level dogs are expected to show up in a stadium environment, have 10 minutes of practice available, and need to perform at extremely high levels. If they had environmental issues, you’d see them, points would get lost if the dog is worried about the stranger with the clipboard walking behind them. Just as a side point…if I see a dog that the breeder claims to be amazing, but yet that dog was never even entered in a regional competition, I’d definitely question the validity of that claim. Or a dog that scored 290+ but only on its home field, and never at a bigger competition…raises questions. I think there is a lot of things that can be easily inferred from where, when, how the dog has been showcased.


----------



## Vandal

Well, since it seems you are putting yourself in the breeder category, I guess you can now join the rest of us in your rather cynical appraisal of what breeders are like and how dishonest they are. 
You also seem to be contradicting yourself. You have to have titles but no one will tell you if the dog doesn't like tile floors. Where are the tile floors in IPO? You are saying you would never do this or never do that. Ok, we have to take your word for it. Doesn't matter if I actually believe you, it is still your word against what may or may not be the truth. It's not fun being accused of dishonesty constantly but that is what breeders are faced with most of the time. Better get used to it if you intend to be one. 

It has always been a case of the knowledge of the breeder and i think that is what might even trump the honesty issue. Some just don't understand and I mean that sincerely. Yes, even when SchH meant something, you still had to have a knowledgeable breeder who understood DOGS. It was never about just titles, it was about the breeder's ability to watch a dog and understand just what kind of dog that was.
I read what sounds like criticism of people who breed to local dogs and I wonder, what is so wrong with that? I hate breeding to dogs I don't know or can't see or better yet work, myself. 
Pedigrees only do so much for you but that now seems to be what people want to point to. Lately, I have had some "great pedigrees" boarding here. Holy cow....one of them is absolutely dangerous she is so frightened and this is a working line dog. What that breeder, (who is very experienced and has trialed at high levels), put together is let's just say, a problem. I had a conversation with this person and they just denied that it was a possibility that the dog would behave that way. I was imagining it. 

Point being, lots of people can title their dog but there is much more to it than that. Like I said earlier in this thread, work as many dogs as you can, watch even more of them and talk to people with knowledge when there is a dog in front of you. Not many of those people left with that deep knowledge of DOGS, not just all this other stuff that people want to cling to. 
We have more of just one type of GSD out there now, which makes breeding much more of a challenge. Used to have a greater variety to choose from in order to make adjustments, improvements, whatever you want to call it. 
Now we have the more excitable, easy to reach, very high prey types and the rest are harder to find. Nerves are what really matter and have ALWAYS been something people had to pay attention to and seek out in breeding partners. No amount of socialization or early stimulation can change them and they are harder to find in the dogs nowadays. 

You are lucky, you are a helper. If you are a good one and can learn how to pressure the dogs correctly, you can see and feel what no one else can. Keep doing that.


----------



## lhczth

mycobraracr said:


> I'm not saying training and titling isn't important. I do believe it is a balance though. A dog that can't work a field is gone in my house, but equally, a dog that I can't take to work with me to hang out in a shop all day is also gone. So that's why I think off the field work is so important. Not to mention, look at all the failures of dogs that are sent through PD testing. Many dogs look strong doing the same things they do everyday, but send them into a building, up stairs and have the dog working a decoy on the edge of a loft with the handler still outside or a few rooms away. You may see something different. I personally look for balance in dogs. I like a dog that's capable of anything I throw at it. Any breeder that tells me their dogs are perfect, is a breeder I will not buy from. Every dog has a fault. That's why pairing is so important is it not? So if a breeder tells me their dog is perfect, then that tells me either they have not tested the dog thoroughly, or they are not honest with their results. That's just my take on it.


:thumbup: 

I tend to travel a lot and my dogs go with me everywhere. I want dogs that can go anywhere and take it all in stride. Hang out in hotels, eat and NOT get digestive upsets, not care if they have to sleep in the truck for a few days........ When I took Vala to Germany she came out of the crate, we went to potty, she scratched off, climbed into a strange crate in a strange car and could have cared less she had just spent 11 hours in a crate in the belly of an airplane. THAT is good nerves. I want those nerves. I don't want to have to go to a strange field with a strange helper and acclimate my dog so they can trial. I want my puppies that go into working homes to not care about the environment ever. Yes, some of this can be tested on the trial field IF you compete more than on your home field. 

I like to work different scenarios in protection (so, off the field). Can't wait to do muzzle work with Deja. She will be fun.  

I also tend to test hunt drive far more than what is tested in IPO since my main goal is for detection and SAR dogs. 

Also :thumbup: to Anne's post. Breeding, especially in the working/IPO world, can be a very thankless endeavor. We are always under constant criticism.


----------



## lhczth

Max, there are and have been a lot of top competition dogs that do not have the best of nerves. They had the best of handling and training. Dogs that performed poorly when they went to the worlds because they traveled badly or would bust out of crates. Dogs that get the runs due to the stress. Dogs that can't walk through a crowd, but look wonderful on the field. The dog on the field tells us one thing, but only the honest person sees the rest.


----------



## martemchik

lhczth said:


> Max, there are and have been a lot of top competition dogs that do not have the best of nerves. They had the best of handling and training. Dogs that performed poorly when they went to the worlds because they traveled badly or would bust out of crates. Dogs that get the runs due to the stress. Dogs that can't walk through a crowd, but look wonderful on the field. The dog on the field tells us one thing, but only the honest person sees the rest.


I'm sure there have been, but it's not the norm. I saw the dogs this year and we did plenty of research about what dog to breed to, overall, they were very good dogs. You can see the lack of nerve in some and not in others, and can also get some anecdotal information about how some dogs are and what they've produced. I just personally don't like the sweeping statement that a dog that is only tested on the field must be a kennel dog and not safe in the house. Or that the dog doesn't get pushed past an escape bite, re-attack, and long bite.

In regards to local dogs...yeah, the flack received for breeding to them and also the flack received for breeding to the "flavor of the year" is also unnecessary. I'd rather breed to a dog I've seen work, seen progress in training, and really understand what that dog brings to the table. I know enough, and know other people with plenty of knowledge that have the ability to look through the training (any many times lack of training) to understand what the dog brings to the table naturally...but most people don't, and I don't think many care to. Although when speaking about national level competitors...most of them don't train sub-par dogs. They want training to go as easy as possible for them as well. Most of those dogs definitely bring "it" genetically.


----------



## lhczth

The dogs at the top are often very good dogs, but are just as often average dogs with super training. You have to look at the dog and not the scores. There are some very good producing dogs that never competed in top competitions and some top winning dogs that produced badly. Training doesn't show up in the whelping box. 

I have used both types of dogs, the top competition dogs and the lesser known. Not sure I can say one produced better for me than the other.


----------



## mycobraracr

Thanks for the participation everyone. Lisa, I like the sound of your dog. Kimber is 19 months, and I have put four titles on her. Three of those were on fields she'd never seen. Not even a ten minute practice session. I trial to see where I'm falling short in training. Not to get a perfect score. I'm not saying I don't want a perfect score, but I'm not going to train "only trial" scenarios to get it. Funny thing is, when I showed up on practice day for my last trial, the judge was already there. I was told it was my turn to get my dog out and practice. I said I didn't want her (my dog) seeing the field until it was our turn on trial day. The looks I received was priceless. I wasn't at practice day for the dog. I was there to meet the people, and check out the field for myself. So I knew where things were so that I could properly lead my dog. I was also told if she'd had her chip checked before. I replied no. Then I was told to get my dog and make sure she was okay, with the scanner because a lot of dogs have issues with it. I again said no and that she'll be fine. Once again the looks I got were amazing. This is the mentality we're dealing with. You must show your dog everything.

When I'm saying that no dog is perfect, I'm not saying that every dog has a nerve issue. I'm simply saying that every dog has something they can improve on. If every bred dog was perfect, we wouldn't have the issues we do. So that's why I have my questions. What are we doing to appropriately test the dogs to see where they need improvement? A trial field shows us something, but to be honest, working on fields with the same layouts every time, doing the same patterns every time since a dog is eight weeks old until it's titled at two, three and so on, doesn't impress me nor tell me about it's true temperament. That's why I personally like to see breeders that title in multiple venues. I also don't expect a breeder to advertise their dogs shortcomings. I do expect the ethical breeder to be honest with me when I ask specific questions and talk to them about what I'm looking for. You might be surprised at how many times I've heard breeders say "I don't want my dogs going to do real work because I don't want them to get hurt". That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## GatorDog

Personally, with the amount of time that I put into IPO on its own, I have absolutely no time left to train in another venue. Maybe if I were just training to get through it with just passing scores, I would be ok with skating by in each venue, but my preference has been to do as well as I can in one venue without trying to tackle a few more at the same time. I've been told by many successful and respected trainers that a jack of all trades is a master of none, and I stand by that.

I spent quite a bit of time training and talking with a woman from the New England region who competed successfully at National and Regional levels in IPO, French Ring and Mondio Ring. When I approached her about my interest in cross training in ring sports, her advice to me was "be prepared to sacrifice the clarity in your training". My female worked a suit one time in her life and took to it without an issue. Would I love to continue that training, absolutely. Am I willing to sacrifice the countless hours I put into trying to do the best we can in IPO? Not right now. We will have time after IPO to try other things. Doesn't all need to be done at once to prove anything in my book.

I also personally don't think 10 minutes of field practice is going to make or break a routine for a dog. I can't imagine someone having a dog nowhere close to ready, going out there and showing the field and coming back with an excellent score. if the dog lacks the clarity of the training in a new venue, it will show at some point in the scores. 10 minutes isn't going to change that in its entirety.. I also think that things such as BH's or similar type certifications are much easier to pass without prior field time. Heeling patterns and down stays are pretty similar across the board, as far as venues go. Once you get to more complicated IPO routines with send aways, I find that 10 minutes of field time is appreciated, but it isn't going to change the underlying training in that few minutes. 10 minutes of field time isn't going to be the difference between failing and V scores, and the training issues or issues with the dog will be seen in the routine regardless.

For the record, my female did BH-IPO2 on strange fields without a problem.


----------



## River-Otter

mycobraracr said:


> Thanks for your input.
> 
> I find this interesting. I would have thought you would want the male's temperment and character almost opposite from the females to try and fill in the gaps so to speak.


This is a common misconception among people new to breeding anything. People tend to think of breeding like mixing paint; Red paint and white paint make pink, so high drive and low drive make medium drive.

But no, not even a little bit.
You don't want to breed to an opposite of a weakness. If your female has a back that's a bit too short and you breed to a male with a back too long, you don't get backs that are in the middle. You get too long like the father, too short like the mother, slightly roached like a grandmother, etc.

To get perfect backs, breed to a male with a perfect back, who comes from a line of excellent backs. Since no animal is perfect, out of males with perfect backs, maybe one is a bit narrower that you like and another could use a better ear set, and a third is sharper in temperament than your girl. 
So, you look at your female and think on what's important to you and decide there is no way you want a sharper temperament in your line, so scratch that, and see that she is as narrow as you will accept, but she has excellent ears, as did her parents and her mother's whole line, so you can pretty safely go with the wider chested dog who's ears could be improved.

So no opposites, but one must be as close to perfect as possible where the other is weak, and consistent on traits that are nonnegotiable then go on with the best of that breeding.
I don't breed dogs specifically, I breed livestock, and this is true regardless of trait or species.


----------



## Vandal

> When I'm saying that no dog is perfect, I'm not saying that every dog has a nerve issue. I'm simply saying that every dog has something they can improve on. If every bred dog was perfect, we wouldn't have the issues we do. So that's why I have my questions. What are we doing to appropriately test the dogs to see where they need improvement? A trial field shows us something, but to be honest, working on fields with the same layouts every time, doing the same patterns every time since a dog is eight weeks old until it's titled at two, three and so on, doesn't impress me nor tell me about it's true temperament. That's why I personally like to see breeders that title in multiple venues.


I think people like to see other people do what they are doing or what they think is "the way" to do things. If you constantly look at this one aspect of "testing" without understanding what the answers mean, then you will have a problem. It's about understanding what you are seeing in those "multiple venues"or just in one venue. You have to train and work with the dogs long enough, and with the right people to show you, in order to do that. 

SchH/ IPO is no longer really designed to eliminate the dogs not for breeding like it did some decades ago. You could have a little more faith in it years ago than you can now but you still had other things to consider.
So, just that title is not enough information but really, for the best breeders it never was. It was a way to see the dogs because the test was designed to put certain traits on display. Much of that is gone now and people do not seem to understand what drives the dogs are supposed to be working in. It's mostly about one drive and the test of the nerve strength is not really there any longer. There is certainly much less discussion of the protective instinct, basically none actually and that was a very big deal and considered to be very important some years ago. 
Some of the other sports test for things more suited to another breed, so, you have to decide if that is really as helpful as you might think.

After that, you have to worry about what your dog will actually produce and how or if, you can make adjustments from there. It is not all about titles that's for sure but that's what people can see at the end of the dog's name without understanding that fact. 
Basically, the trial should show you something about each dog by the way they perform each exercise. Unfortunately, we now have technology and methods that make many of the dogs look similar in how they heel and retrieve etc....and then breeders producing dogs who will fit in well to this kind of training. The dog's natural willingness is not as evident because of the advancements in training. Add to that many of the dogs are simply not worked in the proper drives for the activity they are doing and you have one confusing, kind of not so useful, test. Lots of ignorant people who have no understanding of what I just said who become breeders.

You as the breeder, will decide what is acceptable. That has always been the case, title or not.


----------



## wolfstraum

I used to think that no dog should be bred without a title or real world certification....now I think that a title does not mean a dog should automatically be bred....there are so many dogs with titles that are conditioned and set up to pass that the titles are no longer the be all and end all....

Unfortunately, people invest alot of money and effort in a female and they want to get it back....so what if the female is weak if they can micky mouse her through a title...they can breed to a popular male and recoup their investment....

The biggest problem I see is a combination of kennel blindness and a lack of integrity towards the breed....most people will just NOT wash a female out and not breed her once they have paid for her....

Lee


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

You can watch 5 dogs go through an IPO 3 routine and see 5 differing levels of quality. Its not the title, or the training its what the dog shows in each exercise.


----------



## cliffson1

I support what Anne says that I think flys over a lot of people's heads. Sch used to be sort of a prelude of preparation for a dog that was designed to showcase the raw abilities of the dog. Now, it is a be all end all life long mission that is geared to showcasing the adeptness of the trainer or in SL case necessary hurdle to skate by for breeding rights; to never be visited again. The lack of versatility use of the breed today by many sport people has decreased the ability of versatility of the breed that HAD a legacy as the ultimate versatility dog. Like they say....if you don't use it you will lose it.


----------



## onyx'girl

I am a huge fan of versatility in this breed.
My club trains at a breeders property and the breeder often has visitors coming to watch the dogs work(many are from their lines/breeding but not all are). 

These visitors aren't necessarily interested in the dogs because of the sport we are training in, but many are experienced with SAR, agility, guide dogs and looking for pups to raise for use as demo dogs in their own training programs, which vary from police handlers, detection specialty, and other competitive obedience or sports besides IPO. 
More often than not the visitors return to pick up the pups chosen for them, and it is a wait for most because the breeder doesn't breed often.
The club members enjoy the updates of these litters as we usually get to be involved in the puppy socialization and always learn about individual pups before they are dispersed to their new homes or careers.
I think this breeder really does it right, and for the right reasons.


----------



## martemchik

End of the day…Schutzhund is still the best test of a dog’s nerves and versatility that is available to the average person. There are very few breeders out there that are also working their dogs and placing them in working venues themselves. Most people training K9s, SAR dogs, ect, are getting them from programs that are testing their dogs with Schutzhund, so that means that Schutzhund is still a good test of breeding stock.

Your average Schutzhund participant will not push a dog that isn’t capable of Schutzhund to a title. I’m currently training with someone who has a SL and having tons of issues and is hitting a road block every other training session because they’re not skilled enough (this is their first dog). I also train with a lot of people that have more than capable working lines and are still hitting road blocks and are nowhere near titling their 2-3 year old dogs as well. The dog can’t do it alone, but the dog is still a huge piece of the puzzle.

Everyone that’s currently involved in this discussion has more than enough knowledge to acknowledge that a 70-70-70 at a club trial doesn’t mean much and understands that it probably does point to a dog that shouldn’t be bred. But that’s still more information than a dog that doesn’t do anything. People have to gain experience and knowledge in some way, and not all of us are going to be K9 handlers or trainers.

Sorry…but in today’s environment, if not for Schutzhund and other sport, you’d have very few breeders producing dogs for true working venues, selling off the puppies that don’t work out for $5000 to the pet people that can afford it, and then BYB breeders that don’t do anything will fill the role of selling $2000 puppies to the pet market. The constant belittling of sport on this forum without a real solution or answer to the issue is getting old. I’d love to hear how someone who is young or just starting out in the breed could gain the contacts necessary to start placing and training “real working dogs” without first being involved in sport.


----------



## osito23

Myco, what are you looking to test off the field? Do you have something particular in mind? 

I am not a breeder. My breeder has expressed interest in using my male as a stud, but time will tell. He was not originally purchased as a breeding prospect or IPO prospect but rather as a beginning sport dog in agility and obedience. He was raised as a pet just the same as our other dogs (not GSDs) and well socialized to different environments and people. He did several pet style obedience classes and nosework classes, and at 6 months we started doing competitive style AKC obedience and rally classes. When he was 8 months old we decided to try IPO and have been hooked ever since. In addition to training on our "home field" I meet up several times per week with some training friends for obedience and tracking in different parks and fields. We also do agility weekly for fun. I have very sporadically done show ring training and showed him last month in an SV show. 

We have definitely dabbled in many different venues, but our protection work is limited to IPO for now. For the record we got our BH at 16 months without field practice time - we just went out and did it. I entered him in the SV show and had not prepped for gun fire; the first time he ever heard it was in the ring. No trouble whatsoever. I have not seen any environmental issues; he is always happy to be out and work with me no matter the venue. So I don't know what all I would need to test to prove my dog is breeding quality. It's definitely something I think about, but for now I am just enjoying training him and learning about him.


----------



## cliffson1

Show when it was young was good for the breed, now forty years later going in same Bl and red direction many question the goodness for producing versatile working dogs. Is it possible for sport to continue in same direction it is now it will lose versatility..


----------



## Jax08

cliffson1 said:


> Show when it was young was good for the breed, now forty years later going in same Bl and red direction many question the goodness for producing versatile working dogs. Is it possible for sport to continue in same direction it is now it will lose versatility, I leave that to the new experts who seem to understand better than I when they are heading..


How would a person new to reputable breeders find a dog that represents the breed? When I looked, I looked for versatility. I looked for a breeder with dogs in all venues, solid temperament that could turn it on and off.

What do you look for? You specifically!


----------



## Vandal

> Everyone that’s currently involved in this discussion has more than enough knowledge to acknowledge that a 70-70-70 at a club trial doesn’t mean much and understands that it probably does point to a dog that shouldn’t be bred.


That's not necessarily true...at all. Sometimes, the best dogs to watch on the field are those without all the sophisticated training methods. I've seen some fabulous dogs who put up with less than stellar training and their true character was quite obvious, even with low scores. I prefer that over an average dog dressed up by sophisticated training. That is when you see who the real dog is, if you know a little about dogs vs just the scores. That was the point of what I said in my last post.


----------



## martemchik

Vandal said:


> That's not necessarily true...at all. Sometimes, the best dogs to watch on the field are those without all the sophisticated training methods. I've seen some fabulous dogs who put up with less than stellar training and their true character was quite obvious, even with low scores. I prefer that over an average dog dressed up by sophisticated training. That is when you see who the real dog is, if you know a little about dogs vs just the scores. That was the point of what I said in my last post.


Anne...most people don't have those sophisticated methods. The average person going to club once a week can't dress up a dog with training methods. The majority of TDs don't have the knowledge to do so either. They're not taking bad dogs and getting them to title. They're taking decent dogs and getting them through a title. There are very few people in this country and in this world that can take a decent dog and make it look great, and even those people search out the great dogs and get rid of any dog that doesn't meet their standards...even when that dog has the ability to be national level and would make a great club/regional dog for anyone else.

Schutzhund proves its difficulty time and time again. Last two trials in my region...2/10 dogs have attained an IPO title. Yup, 8 dogs failed. Most of the dogs are decent, they're probably capable if they had better training, but the training is just not there. Can a better trainer get those dogs to title? Absolutely. But those dogs would never be national level no matter who is doing the training. They're also not breedworthy if you're talking my standard, but they're definitely more breedworthy than the dog's down the street that aren't doing a single thing.

To me this always comes back to giving BYB and people that have done a few bite work sessions with their dog an excuse to breed their dog. IPO title doesn't mean anything, so why get it? Look at these pictures of my dog biting full and barking at a helper that is threatening him...clearly should be bred.


----------



## Liesje

I'm not a breeder but have had my dog used at stud a few times so when deciding whether or not to allow a breeder to use my male....

*how do you decide what is a disqualifying trait?
*
Really horrible pedigree match. I don't always say "no" just because I personally wouldn't pay money for a puppy. If the breeder understands the pedigree, what my male brings to the table, whether it's a compliment, they have a clear goal in mind...OK. But if it's just all wrong...no. There are some lines and pedigrees that I won't mix with my dog's because I know it's a disaster. I won't give specifics here because I don't want to debate it or offend anyone. Yes, I have turned down breedings or dropped enough hints to turn people away.

Female needs to have hips and elbows done.

Must not be a bitch that has to be muzzled and restrained to allow natural breeding. I am fine with people liking nasty, dog aggressive bitches, but IMO the ones that WILL NOT STAND for breeding or allow some reasonable assistance if they are inexperienced have other issues like nerve issues, will be bad mothers, etc. We can do AI because of distance or a female that is receptive but might have a stricture or be really narrow inside (things that can be corrected pretty easily or will self-correct after giving birth), but no AIs because the female completely freaks out by breeding and no muzzling a female and tying her to a stand to be bred.

I have other criteria but it all depends on the pairing and also the person wanting to do the breeding. These are just my definite "nos".
*

Something can be fixed with the proper pairing? *

Size/height over/under a bit.

A pedigree that isn't my favorite but I am willing to move past based on opinions of people I trust and/or I am happy with the breeder's understanding of the pedigree and their goals and/or I really like the female in front of me. Like the above, there are of course more criteria and evaluation going on but it depends on what I see in the specific dog in pedigree (temperament and health), on the training field, in front of me acting like a dog in everyday situations.


*Or something you are just going to let slide? *

Long coat (I just don't care, I don't personally want coats but I've seen them do just as well at all the things I do with my GSDs).



Of course there is always a LOT more going into the decision than the things listed here, but these are just some of my personal "no", "maybe", "don't care" that come to mind.


----------



## Jax08

cliffson1 said:


> Show when it was young was good for the breed, now forty years later going in same Bl and red direction many question the goodness for producing versatile working dogs. Is it possible for sport to continue in same direction it is now it will lose versatility, I leave that to the new experts who seem to understand better than I when they are heading..





Jax08 said:


> How would a person new to reputable breeders find a dog that represents the breed? When I looked, I looked for versatility. I looked for a breeder with dogs in all venues, solid temperament that could turn it on and off.
> 
> What do you look for? You specifically!


Cliff?


----------



## lhczth

*Starting to get personal/snarky, let's stay on topic and best to leave things generic. 

Thank you,

ADMIN*


----------



## Vandal

> Anne...most people don't have those sophisticated methods.


I guess I have confused you with the word I used. The training methods are much different now. We can include the way protection is trained as well. Don't have time to discuss the rest, I have to go to work.


----------



## G-burg

> Quote:
> Everyone that’s currently involved in this discussion has more than enough knowledge to acknowledge that a 70-70-70 at a club trial doesn’t mean much and understands that it probably does point to a dog that shouldn’t be bred.





> * That's not necessarily true...at all. Sometimes, the best dogs to watch on the field are those without all the sophisticated training methods. I've seen some fabulous dogs who put up with less than stellar training and their true character was quite obvious, even with low scores.* I prefer that over an average dog dressed up by sophisticated training. That is when you see who the real dog is, if you know a little about dogs vs just the scores. That was the point of what I said in my last post.


I agree with this Anne! 

The old timer (Schutzhund wise) we train with, who has also bred some nice dogs over the years... His motto for a long time has been 70-70-80.. Anything above that are bonus points.. For him it wasn't about the points or getting on the podium.. It was about seeing who the dog was/where..


----------



## cliffson1

New people have a difficult time these days getting that " dog" unless they are fortunate enough to have guidance from experienced people in the breed. My answer to the question wouldn't be applicable to a new person. There are good breeders out there who are producing super dogs consistently and there are breeders out there who strke it right sometimes and then there are breeders that are breeding for their venue as opposed to breeding for standard. Very difficult for a new person because there are experts in show, sport, and BYB that all sound very knowledgable to new people. My feelings and involvement in the breed these days is certainly a minority position, I understand that, but I still advise people on getting good dogs and as long as the vast majority of these people are extremely happy, then I feel there is some merit to my thoughts on the breed. I think sport and show have their place, but breeders should not make it the goal of their breeding programs.....but that train has long since left and I am aware of that.


----------



## holland

I guess as my dogs get older I would put health up there pretty high-also I'm confused its kind of a normal state for me..but the dog is the dog-not sure how new training methods change that...also on these threads to say I agree with Ann ...is that like taking a risk??


----------



## mycobraracr

This thread got way more into "sport" than I intended. I'm not saying we need a new test. I'm just wondering what else breeders are doing besides sport to know their dogs are breed worthy. Sport tells only part of the picture. The rest is unknown. I 100% disagree that sport tells you all you need to know. If that were the case then why are GSD's not making the cut anymore for real work. K9's, SAR, service animals? Sure make it but majority these days do not. The sport world has gotten just as bad as the Show world. They breed for specifics to the venue they are in. I'm seeing less and less of a balance. Saying that if a dog doesn't score in the 90's then it's bad is insane! Since when does a score tell you about the dog? Look at some of the best producers behind most of our pedigrees today. I've seen many dq's, and scores in the 40's and 50's. Yet these dogs showed the power and temperament that people wanted. I watched a ton of videos this morning ranging fro. The popular dogs of the 80's and early 90's all the way up to present. It was almost like an evolutionary video. Dogs went from being rewarded for power and strength to more and more prey based movements and precision being the focus.


----------



## lhczth

holland said:


> ..also on these threads to say I agree with Ann ...is that like taking a risk??



Anne is an excellent writer, very knowledgeable and often there is nothing more to add to what she has written. Agreeing is just that. Agreeing.


----------



## martemchik

That’s also working with the assumption that 30+ years ago, every GSD was capable of becoming a K9 or be trained in some other working venue and the wash out rate wasn't as big as it is today. I don’t believe that was ever true. Schutzhund/sport was also the same way, it was actually worse because back then, if your dog didn’t cut it, it was run off the field, no one bothered to “work a dog through” anything. On top of that, working dogs today are expected to perform at much higher standards and do a lot more than dogs in the past. And truthfully…most “working dog” information is extremely anecdotal and there is very little “real” proof of what the dogs did and how they were trained. Each department and city did their own thing and expected different things from their dogs…it’s still true to this day. At least with sport there’s a minimum standard.

I’ve also watched some of the WUSV videos from the 1980s, also listened to interviews of people involved in the sport from the 1980s and still doing it at a world level today. Those dogs, by my experience and also by that person’s word, wouldn’t even come close to the podium today…they’d be lucky to qualify for nationals against the dogs today, much less do anything on the world level. I saw dogs in the WUSV not showing power or strength, I saw them showing insecurity and fear, not knowing what to do in a blind, looking for their handler. Stuff you’d never see with today’s highest level dogs.

Anyways…my current thought on “testing” a dog is that I want to always consider the litter for myself. If I wouldn’t keep a puppy, or if this was an outside breeding and I wouldn’t purchase a dog from a breeding like this, I wouldn’t breed the dog. I personally never want to deal with any kind of environmental issues, so if I had a dog that had them, I wouldn’t consider them for breeding because I don’t want to pass such a trait on. I’m also not breeding for a living and it’s pretty easy to understand why those breeders that live off their breeding programs will breed "questionable dogs" after making a significant investment in that animal, especially understanding that the majority of their puppies are going to go to homes where most people wouldn’t recognize a lack of nerve other issues that show up when a dog is tested to a higher level.


----------



## lhczth

Some of those dogs, the best of them, showed power and abilities that we don't see so much now. You often saw more of the raw dog. The breeders also knew how to use the different dogs, the different lines to bring balance to their breeding programs. They were able to see the good and the bad. Look at a dog like Arek Stoffelblick. Don't look at the correctness, the points. Look at the dog. Points don't reproduce.


----------



## onyx'girl

quote by Anne in a previous thread bears repeating:


> When I started, people mostly went out to show who their dog was. You were considered a good trainer if you could put your dog on display and not get in the way of a really great dog. Meaning you brought out the dog's natural drives and instincts and didn't ruin the dog with bad training.
> Times have changed and the trainer is more on display. That's just the facts.


----------



## mycobraracr

martemchik said:


> Those dogs, by my experience and also by that person’s word, wouldn’t even come close to the podium today…they’d be lucky to qualify for nationals against the dogs today, much less do anything on the world level.


I agree with you here. The type of dog encouraged today is a far cry from the dog that was encouraged then. Priorities are very different. Look at the progression in these couple videos. Don't just look at the dogs, look at the differences in helper work. 

Fero 1987 https://youtu.be/jkj9evFLVco
Gildo 1987 https://youtu.be/KV5KcF8JEAE
Yoschy BSP 1994 https://youtu.be/RPnbJJgK-no
Tom 1999 https://youtu.be/ADU_aYDNy8I
Troll 2000 https://youtu.be/zsCeZR_1384
Hank 2013 https://youtu.be/W7TZcYjM4QI


----------



## lhczth

The old style courage test (not a freaking long pursuit) was an excellent test of the dogs. Removing this and the attack out of the blind in the 1 were the two worst decisions made for testing the dogs in the SchH1.


----------



## RockyK9

Vandal said:


> I think people like to see other people do what they are doing or what they think is "the way" to do things. If you constantly look at this one aspect of "testing" without understanding what the answers mean, then you will have a problem. It's about understanding what you are seeing in those "multiple venues"or just in one venue. You have to train and work with the dogs long enough, and with the right people to show you, in order to do that.
> 
> SchH/ IPO is no longer really designed to eliminate the dogs not for breeding like it did some decades ago. You could have a little more faith in it years ago than you can now but you still had other things to consider.
> So, just that title is not enough information but really, for the best breeders it never was. It was a way to see the dogs because the test was designed to put certain traits on display. Much of that is gone now and people do not seem to understand what drives the dogs are supposed to be working in. It's mostly about one drive and the test of the nerve strength is not really there any longer. There is certainly much less discussion of the protective instinct, basically none actually and that was a very big deal and considered to be very important some years ago.
> Some of the other sports test for things more suited to another breed, so, you have to decide if that is really as helpful as you might think.
> 
> After that, you have to worry about what your dog will actually produce and how or if, you can make adjustments from there. It is not all about titles that's for sure but that's what people can see at the end of the dog's name without understanding that fact.
> Basically, the trial should show you something about each dog by the way they perform each exercise. Unfortunately, we now have technology and methods that make many of the dogs look similar in how they heel and retrieve etc....and then breeders producing dogs who will fit in well to this kind of training. The dog's natural willingness is not as evident because of the advancements in training. Add to that many of the dogs are simply not worked in the proper drives for the activity they are doing and you have one confusing, kind of not so useful, test. Lots of ignorant people who have no understanding of what I just said who become breeders.
> 
> You as the breeder, will decide what is acceptable. That has always been the case, title or not.


:thumbup:


----------



## martemchik

IMO…you started a bit late with the progression. Look at early 80s stuff as well. You’ll see dogs making huge mistakes and none of those show “power” to me. Even in some of these videos…the ones from 1987 and Hank in 1994. I just see the dog not being trained well enough to complete an exercise, not that the dog is so over powering that it couldn’t be taught…just that the handler didn’t know how to make it better and since the judging was more lax, there was no reason to get a tighter picture. You can already see the development of a clearer/cleaner hold and bark…but things like the back transport, with the dog forging way ahead of the handler, I don’t call that power, I call that lack of training. Plenty of dogs today (at that level) will heel, stare straight at the helper, and be on him the moment he makes the turn. One of the dogs out platzed…wagging his tail…looking for his handler during guarding, that’s not power and that says a lot about the dog himself and also the lack of understanding by the handler/trainer on how to teach the more correct exercise. One of the dogs from 1987 also outed and didn’t have any idea what to do, took him quite a bit of time to start barking again and even then it wasn’t consistent. I also see plenty of grips that aren’t full. Thing I noticed in the first video was that the dog was very confused on the set up to the escape, but very clear the moment the handler stepped away for the disarming. So the dog was clearly taught that exercise pretty well, and the handler stepping away was a que for the dog, but the actual moving to the escape wasn’t. Maybe some people consider that power… Gildo engages with the helper on the side transport (after transporting him on the left side), is that power? Or is that just an out of control dog with lack of training/clarity? I don’t know…to each their own. Maybe its the constant head shacking while on the sleeve that's considered power? Today I consider that a prey maneuver...not a fight. But I might be wrong. Guess I'd rather see a dog pulling backwards or sideways trying to move the helper and not just shacking his head like he's killing a rabbit.

Later on, starting with Tom, you can see the development of the picture we see today at most national level competitions. Can’t say that the dog himself (he’s a great dog) shows any kind of different power than the dogs I see today do. Maybe I’m not seeing it, but the helper work seems right in line with what is expected today as well, can’t say that the pressure put on those dogs is any different than what is seen at national competitions today. Yeah, looks like there were more changes of direction…but I don’t know if driving a dog in a circle rather than a straight line is really more pressure.

The understanding of how to train animals (all species) has greatly progressed over the last 2 decades, and due to the ability to then breed a dog that more fits that training ability, breeders have bred for a different type of dog. I will always find it interesting how this is the one aspect of my life where progress and advancement seem to be shunned and discouraged. Everywhere else we have made great leaps, yet with the GSD all we get is how bad they are today compared to yesterday. Funny how most people that you meet at trials and national events don’t seem to hold that same sentiment. But it is what it is on this forum.


----------



## lhczth

The training is changing the dogs to better fit the training. Instead of the better training being used to better train the dogs. Make sense? 

Not just this forum and trials are not always the best places to get opinions about the progression and health in the breed. When I inquire about dogs to use for breeding I should never hear "this dog is better for producing police dogs and not for sport".


----------



## martemchik

lhczth said:


> The training is changing the dogs to better fit the training. Instead of the better training being used to better train the dogs. Make sense?


Absolutely...we're on the same page. But that's still assuming that the training today is worse than the training was yesterday. If the we assume the training is better, why is it wrong to breed dogs that better suit that better training method? Again...pointing to how people just don't accept advancement and improvement in methods because they were taught method X.0, and method X.0 is the best no matter what.

I can guarantee that the dogs from the early 1900 were nothing like the dogs from the 1940 who were nothing like the dogs from the 1970 who are not like what we have today. The change in the breed did not happen over the last 3 decades, it's been constant throughout the last century. It's called progress. People learn more, people understand better, people make things better. No real data supports the claims that the breed is any worse off today than it was back then. There's just anecdotal, biased, information. I don't really see "real working venues" struggling to find working dogs when they need them.


----------



## Vandal

> I don’t believe that was ever true. Schutzhund/sport was also the same way, it was actually worse because back then, if your dog didn’t cut it, it was run off the field, no one bothered to “work a dog through” anything.


Frankly Max, you talk too much about things you know nothing about. You don't have any idea what it takes to get to the WUSV or the Nationals or what it took for the dogs years ago either. 

As for this quote, that's a bunch of baloney. My friend who also bred my dog Vandal, had a brother where big mistakes were made in the previous training and he was very injured when he was jammed badly in a trial. He had an out problem but with the right training, we pretty much fixed it and he went on to compete at the WUSV three times, scoring very well. I went twice with his brother and he too had training issues we worked to fix in order to improve his performance. I was the helper at a very large club here where numerous other dogs attended the WUSV on the USA team and all of them were "worked with".
We weren't trying to hide some genetic temperament fault however. Nowadays, we see lots of that and because the test is not the same, these dogs can pass when all the right pieces fall in place. 

Yes, the SchH 1 would eliminate the dogs who didn't have the genetics and if it were the same today, we would not be seeing many dogs still out there being "worked with" trying to fix it enough so they can earn that title and possibly use it to justify breeding a dog with issues.
The owners might even understand that the dog could not do it and the chance of the dog being bred simply because he had a title would be something we might just see less of.


----------



## martemchik

It's unfortunate that you feel that way...look where "running dogs off the field" has gotten the sport. Not even 1% of GSD breeders today participate in it, even less GSD owners participate in Schutzhund. There are 10 USCA clubs currently in my region, we just lost two this month. The older generation is too busy knocking down the next generation and making them feel inadequate rather than trying to teach something. You're right, I don't know what it takes to get to the WUSV, but I can watch videos of dogs and see the difference. Doesn't take decades of experience to see how the standard has changed at that level. My apologies that my objective statement has hurt your feelings, feel free to attack my intelligence from here on out.

It is what it is...remember, I wasn't the one that got the breed to where it is, so I'm not sure why you all feel the need to attack me, I'm just commenting on what I see. Jeremy and myself are just now getting into it, trying to learn, but when the older generation just comes back with "you talk to much about something you know nothing about" it shows what they care about...being right, not teaching. I have to pick up where the last generation left off, and that's what I care about, not going back to what the dogs were in 1970, sorry to burst your bubble, but it will never be 1970 again. And the last thing I'd ever want is to return it back to what people that make those types of statements think is "best."

It is what it is...lets attack those that are trying to do it right, blame the changes on them, but just leave the BYBs and those doing nothing alone. Heck, at times, this forum recommends the breeders that don't do anything. Make the right friends, and that's all that matters. No need to prove anything on the field if you keep the right secrets from the right people.


----------



## lhczth

martemchik said:


> Absolutely...we're on the same page. But that's still assuming that the training today is worse than the training was yesterday. If the we assume the training is better, why is it wrong to breed dogs that better suit that better training method? Again...pointing to how people just don't accept advancement and improvement in methods because they were taught method X.0, and method X.0 is the best no matter what.


I never said that training now is any worse or better. I do think the training now is not always balanced and tends to favor a certain type of dog. If that dog doesn't fit the methods they are discarded as unsuitable. That was not always the case back when I started. 



> No real data supports the claims that the breed is any worse off today than it was back then. There's just anecdotal, biased, information. I don't really see "real working venues" struggling to find working dogs when they need them.


Then you need to talk to more procurement officers. One quoted me that they used to be able to find 100 suitable dogs out of 200 tested (50%). Now it is more like 100 suitable dogs out of 1000 tested (10%). Most of the problems are a lack of nerves. 

I have been in the breed for over 30 years and it is getting much much harder to find the utilitarian working dogs that I started out with and much much harder to find males that will help maintain balance in my breeding program.


----------



## onyx'girl

love this perspective
Be Humble...Effect of Ego on Training - High In Trial


----------



## lhczth

*OK, might be time for people to take a break.  This is getting heated again. I'll reopen tomorrow.

ADMIN*


----------



## lhczth

*Reopening. Please remain civil. 

Thank you,

ADMIN*


----------



## Vandal

> It's unfortunate that you feel that way...look where "running dogs off the field" has gotten the sport. Not even 1% of GSD breeders today participate in it, even less GSD owners participate in Schutzhund.


When I started the rules were followed but "running them off the field" wasn't the main goal as you seem to be implying. There were two clubs in UScA at the time and somehow it grew to the many clubs we have now. To be clear, since it seems you are trying to make what is still done today seem like some kind of barbaric practice, .....when a dog let go, the judge instructed the helper to stop and the dog was dismissed. That last part is maybe where the biggest difference in how things are done today. Now,some dogs get mulligans, or the fact that they showed that level of insecurity is dismissed by the judge vs the dog being dismissed. How anyone can think that is a good way to operate when it comes to protection dogs is beyond me but we have seen the result, much more with the show dogs but there was a time when a dog's character and stability really mattered. They were not playing and it was the responsible thing to do.
The idea that we didn't work with the dogs and they were instead sent down some disposal chute is absurd and needed to be pointed out. You made a statement without anything to back it up with. I simply pointed that out since I was training dogs at that time and saw what went on. 
There are a number of reasons the sport is dying but that has nothing to do with what you said.



> but I can watch videos of dogs and see the difference. Doesn't take decades of experience to see how the standard has changed at that level. My apologies that my objective statement has hurt your feelings, feel free to attack my intelligence from here on out.


Videos never convey the entire story and never really convey reality like when you can see and feel something in person. Not to mention what else was going on at the time meaning how the dogs were trained etc. That has nothing to do with insulting your intelligence but it might have to do with boundaries and what you convey as "knowing" when you were not there and never actually experienced it. My feelings are just fine, thanks for your concern.



> so I'm not sure why you all feel the need to attack me, I'm just commenting on what I see. Jeremy and myself are just now getting into it, trying to learn, but when the older generation just comes back with "you talk to much about something you know nothing about" it shows what they care about...being right, not teaching


I could ask you the same thing about attacking people but why bother? I am responding to the way you say things here. They are stated as fact and what I read from you usually gives no indication that you are asking to learn, quite the opposite actually. Seems you know quite a bit and I think I even read somewhere you saying that you did. 

If you want help, just ask. I see people willing to help others understand things on here quite a bit but some of them are met with sarcasm and yes, attacks.


----------



## Smithie86

What has also changed in the last 10 years? 

Everyone and their brother, a lot with no experience or do not even take care of the dogs, that become instant experts at training, breeding, selecting dogs for a venue (IPO, SAR, police k9), when they do not even pick up a leash. They base their knowledge on people they pay for dogs and training. 

People that title 1 dog (or not) are experienced trainers/helpers and conducting seminars, when they do not know the rules, how to train different dogs and are more focused on getting contacts for training $$.

Breeding is now more of a business, not a strategy for producing dogs. People that flip flop on what lines/dogs they like, based on getting contacts for training $ and selling puppies/dogs.

With the increase in social media, so many people claim and or infer experience, so many people scam others for dogs, paperwork and $$. 

The rapid increase of dogs being quick titled for breeding (hopefully under a judge whose scores are recognized) and claims of V scores all over. This is in both show and working lines.


----------



## lhczth

Smithie86 said:


> The rapid increase of dogs being quick titled for breeding (hopefully under a judge whose scores are recognized) and claims of V scores all over. This is in both show and working lines.


Sad. How can you breed working dogs if you are not working your dogs?


----------



## GatorDog

lhczth said:


> Smithie86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rapid increase of dogs being quick titled for breeding (hopefully under a judge whose scores are recognized) and claims of V scores all over. This is in both show and working lines.
> 
> 
> 
> Sad. How can you breed working dogs if you are not working your dogs?
Click to expand...

And then sell them for $2000+


----------



## lhczth

Or more.


----------



## holland

No one is answering what qualities outside of schutzhund are important in selecting a breeding dog...


----------



## gsdsar

holland said:


> No one is answering what qualities outside of schutzhund are important in selecting a breeding dog...



This is what I was thinking. 

What and how are certain qualities being looked at off the SchH field? Even if that's your main sport. What else? How they are at home? In public? On agility? How are you testing for actual hunt drive?


----------



## shepherdmom

Smithie86 said:


> Breeding is now more of a business, not a strategy for producing dogs. People that flip flop on what lines/dogs they like, based on getting contacts for training $ and selling puppies/dogs.


I don't think this has changed all that much. I'm pretty sure breeding dogs has always been somewhat of a business for some and its pretty much always been controlled by the elite. John Q Public has neither the time nor the funds to be heavily involved.


----------



## GatorDog

holland said:


> No one is answering what qualities outside of schutzhund are important in selecting a breeding dog...


I think the dog should be capable of functioning in an everyday home environment and competition level training at the same time. Healthy, social enough or aloof to strangers and other dogs, not overly suspicious of new people or surroundings, environmentally sound, biddable and easily motivated and with a clear enough head to know when to settle down and relax, yet turn it on in an instant. Thats what comes to mind for me.


----------



## Smithie86

shepherdmom said:


> I don't think this has changed all that much. I'm pretty sure breeding dogs has always been somewhat of a business for some and its pretty much always been controlled by the elite. John Q Public has neither the time nor the funds to be heavily involved.


Having been in this for over 20 years and husband a lot longer (45 plus years), it has dramatically increased from a sport with some business to a pure commodity for a lot of people who have jumped in, the last 10 years…..

And those people will continue to exist and maintain, as long as people support them and recommend them (either for profit for them or maintain business ties).


----------



## lhczth

holland said:


> No one is answering what qualities outside of schutzhund are important in selecting a breeding dog...


If you have read everything since the thread was rehashed, then, yes, some of us have said what we do in our selections outside of SchH.


----------



## Castlemaid

shepherdmom said:


> I don't think this has changed all that much. I'm pretty sure breeding dogs has always been somewhat of a business for some and its pretty much always been controlled by the elite. John Q Public has neither the time nor the funds to be heavily involved.


I'm curious what you mean "always been controled by the Elite"? What is your definition of 'The Elite" when it comes to GSD breeders. I can read this statement as implying/meaning a number of different things, and I'm curious as to which sense of the elite you mean. (I can see it as being a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on what you mean).


----------



## shepherdmom

Castlemaid said:


> I'm curious what you mean "always been controled by the Elite"? What is your definition of 'The Elite" when it comes to GSD breeders. I can read this statement as implying/meaning a number of different things, and I'm curious as to which sense of the elite you mean. (I can see it as being a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on what you mean).


I was using it basically as the dictionary defines it. 

" the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc" 

I am not talking specifically the German Shepherd but dogs in general and going much further back than just the last 20-40 years. Many dog breeds are around today because they were once fashionable with the royals or nobility. Max von Stephanitz was a member of the German nobility.


----------



## DaniFani

shepherdmom said:


> I was using it basically as the dictionary defines it.
> 
> " the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc"
> 
> I am not talking specifically the German Shepherd but dogs in general and going much further back than just the last 20-40 years. Many dog breeds are around today because they were once fashionable with the royals or nobility. Max von Stephanitz was a member of the German nobility.


Lol, you find me a "rich and powerful" breeder and my hat's off to you. Almost all are average American's living average lives, that have found fulfillment in expanding their knowledge, gaining experience, and breeding. Yeah, there are a few that manage to "make a living" off breeding (more training than breeding, I find), but even they aren't living in their mansions, sipping cognac, and laughing at the peasants that want their "elite" dogs, but can't have them. They are usually living in a modest home, on a little acreage, maybe with a kennel set up, and usually work a job that has nothing to do with dogs to pay the bills. In my experience. I don't think there is anything "elite" about any of them. I will give you the "educated and gifted" part of the definition. And I hope it always stays that way. Look at what the uneducated (inexperienced) and ignorant byb's have done to any breed or any species.

I know you are trying to portray the opinion of joe-know-nothing-public, like you always do. I used to be joe-know-nothing-public. I just chose to be educated by those that DO know about the breed, DO work the breed, DO train regularly in venues meant for our breed (I've been involved more so with working LE K9's lately than sport), and EXPAND my own knowledge. Especially once I realized my thoughts and "opinions" were way off from fact. 

I believe in educating the uneducated (I generally put myself in the uneducated category here because I am ALWAYS learning from trainers and breeders in it far far far longer than I), not catering to those that want nothing to do with it. It's a lost cause and a waste of time when there are so many that are eager to learn, participate, and help further a good cause...making their favorite breed be all it was ever supposed to be. 

I'm certainly not rich or powerful, but that doesn't mean I can't be mentored and learn, learn, learn. You don't need a big bank account to do that, and none of my mentors have big bank accounts either.....maybe they actually know nothing....hmmm


----------



## mycobraracr

GatorDog said:


> I think the dog should be capable of functioning in an everyday home environment and competition level training at the same time. Healthy, social enough or aloof to strangers and other dogs, not overly suspicious of new people or surroundings, environmentally sound, biddable and easily motivated and with a clear enough head to know when to settle down and relax, yet turn it on in an instant. Thats what comes to mind for me.



:thumbup: I completely agree. A dog that has to be kenneled in order to be competitive is not for me. IMO a GSD is a jack of all trades. I expect a well bred dog to take everything thrown at it. Hanging out at work, camping, hiking, swimming, watching a movie on the couch. Unfortunately, I see more and more breeders (even some recommended on here) who have training fields in their back yards and more dogs than I can feasibly see living in a house. So we don't get to see or hear what those dogs are like in those situations. I also don't believe that one test can tell us everything we ever needed to know about a dog. I understand that in training things can get amped up, but still usually in the context of it's training venue. Scores don't tell you anything. Different judges and trial conditions can change that. Not to mention majority of sports out there you can earn the title by passing it once. I know a dog who has scored an 88 in OB and a 97 in PRO once. Now this same dog failed the title three times before that and failed three times after that. So what does that say? Good day? Different Judges? Who knows. 

Some people say I'm stupid for doing multiple venues. Okay, that's their opinion. IMO I think it's an insult to my dog and the breed to only have it doing the same three exercises it's whole life. All I know is things like AKC venues puts the dog in a completely different environment than an IPO field. So you can see something different. Agility, can show how the dog works with the handler. Different bite sports look at different aspects of the dogs. Some use environmental distractions, some use more/less pressure. Some work sleeve, some work suit, some require a dog to bite different places on a suit. All these things change how the dog interprets the helper/decoy. All these things tell me something. 

I wish I could finish this thought, but I have to go back to work. Mods, thank you for keeping this thread open. Thank you to all those participating as there has been some great info shared. Max, even though we disagree on some things I appreciate the fact that we can always have a real discussion without it getting personal derogatory on or off this forum.


----------



## onyx'girl

mycobraracr said:


> :thumbup: I completely agree. A dog that has to be kenneled in order to be competitive is not for me. IMO a GSD is a jack of all trades. I expect a well bred dog to take everything thrown at it. Hanging out at work, camping, hiking, swimming, watching a movie on the couch. Unfortunately, I see more and more breeders (even some recommended on here) who have training fields in their back yards and more dogs than I can feasibly see living in a house. So we don't get to see or hear what those dogs are like in those situations. I also don't believe that one test can tell us everything we ever needed to know about a dog. I understand that in training things can get amped up, but still usually in the context of it's training venue.* Scores don't tell you anything. Different judges and trial conditions can change that. *Not to mention majority of sports out there you can earn the title by passing it once. I know a dog who has scored an 88 in OB and a 97 in PRO once. Now this same dog failed the title three times before that and failed three times after that. So what does that say? Good day? Different Judges? Who knows.
> 
> Some people say I'm stupid for doing multiple venues. Okay, that's their opinion. IMO I think it's an insult to my dog and the breed to only have it doing the same three exercises it's whole life. All I know is things like AKC venues puts the dog in a completely different environment than an IPO field. So you can see something different. Agility, can show how the dog works with the handler. Different bite sports look at different aspects of the dogs. Some use environmental distractions, some use more/less pressure. Some work sleeve, some work suit, some require a dog to bite different places on a suit. All these things change how the dog interprets the helper/decoy. All these things tell me something.


I agree about the scores, and what they do or do not say. I trialed and the day and spot I had to track was extremely dry with 50mph gusty winds, scores were all over the place depending on where the tracks were located. The next morning, there was no wind, a nice cover of frost and the scores reflected the conditions.
I recently did an SDA P1 and knew well that I had to keep my dog dialed in, which didn't show his true power. Judge commented that the dog wasn't showing enough power, as I chose to hold him back and not possibly get DQ'd for my handling skill. 
I know who my dog is, the judge saw a small picture of him on trial day....odd though, many of the dogs that scored high were putting on a great show of teeth and barking, but they lacked power, handler could have held them back with one hand on the line. 

I think training in multiple sports is just fine, the dogs do enjoy different training scenario's as long as there is no confusion in certain similar exercises. And you can learn much more about your dog and your training than doing just one type of sport with the same exercises repeating over and over.


----------



## Liesje

shepherdmom said:


> I don't think this has changed all that much. I'm pretty sure breeding dogs has always been somewhat of a business for some and its pretty much always been controlled by the elite. John Q Public has neither the time nor the funds to be heavily involved.


I don't know.... I knew what I wanted so I got together with a friend (who has been breeding working dogs, on a "hobby" level and worked a normal day job until retirement, for longer than I've been alive) and we discussed breeding our dogs, she watched my dog train and compete for two years, then decided to go ahead. I got my puppy, and now he's my next competition dog and my companion as well. It was a big litter, not advertised on Facebook (this breeder is "old school", no website), and they all sold just fine (and several were given away to people we know or discounted to working homes). I made $0. I don't consider myself "elite" other than some of my dog's titles/points earned being at the "elite" level in their respective sports. Nobody had any control over us. They can trash talk our dogs or our reasonings for breeding, but in the end, we got what we wanted. I took two puppies from the litter and now BOTH are being titled in multiple sports each (one I kept, one belongs to a friend). The more involved I was in deciding whether to breed my dog and who to allow to be bred to him, the more I realized that a lot of people, even people I myself respect as mentors in this breed/training/breeding often are more "do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to breeding.


----------



## shepherdmom

DaniFani said:


> I know you are trying to portray the opinion of joe-know-nothing-public, like you always do. I used to be joe-know-nothing-public. I just chose to be educated by those that DO know about the breed, DO work the breed, DO train regularly in venues meant for our breed (I've been involved more so with working LE K9's lately than sport), and EXPAND my own knowledge. Especially once I realized my thoughts and "opinions" were way off from fact.



Oh Dani don't derail a good thread because you want to snipe at me. She asked I answered. You want to battle out my opinion start a new thread. I don't want this one shut down over something silly. If people get to be elite by education or by wealth it is still has the same effects on the breed. Neither you nor I want to see the non elite indiscriminately breeding.


----------



## martemchik

That’s what I started getting at in the first place…the “regular dog” stuff is usually tested by the breeder and told to the buyer. Most people who have dogs that live in the home, aren’t going to deal with weird environmental quirks. I think the best way to “trust” that a dog doesn’t have those issues is to find a breeder that is actively holding back stock…maybe breeding once every year or two and holding back puppies for themselves. Says that they want this type of dog and aren’t just selling the animals. Not saying that breeders that sell all their dogs are bad, but it is definitely a piece of information about the dogs. There are a lot of breeders that have popular stud dogs and even solid bitches who never hold back a puppy from those litters…tells you something about the production they’re getting out of those particular dogs. You’re right about the kennel dogs, harder to know/understand how socialized those dogs are, but the only way to avoid that issue is to not purchase from a breeder that has kennel dogs. Not saying it’s wrong either, sometimes you just end up with too many dogs to keep them all in the house, but if that’s something that worries a buyer, they just need to look elsewhere.

Other venues? I like seeing dogs in other venues, but unfortunately time and resources are almost always limited. AKC trials are on the weekend, so are most club training days. So for every AKC trial you attend, you’re skipping a training day. A lot of the other sports are just as involved as Schutzhund if you want to compete and do well. At more than $25 a run now for basically any AKC trial, no one wants to go out there and fail, and that takes dedication.

I guess to me…scores matter mostly because we’re expected to be breeding the exceptional animals. Whatever the chosen venue…a higher score points to a better animal. Make all the points you want about the “picture that day.” Exceptional dogs and exceptional training shows on more than one occasion. Trainers that are consistently getting high scores, are never the ones complaining about judges or making excuses about their dog on a given day. And it really doesn’t matter what sport you’re talking about. A CD is a great accomplishment, but a CD with 3 legs at over 195 is even better. Dock diving is great, but a dog that jumps over 20 feet is even better. A Schutzhund title is great, but V scores make others notice the dog. A UDX is a great accomplishment, but a OTCH truly sets you apart from the pack.

Either way…I’ve met very few breeders that make any kind of breeding decision based on points alone. If you’re involved enough to understand what the points mean, you’ve got the knowledge to see the dog beyond those points. I’m really not seeing an over-abundance of litters sired by the top IPO dogs in the country. Do they get more calls than others? Sure. But I wouldn’t say it makes that large of an effect on the breed as a whole when you consider how many litters are born each year.


----------



## DaniFani

shepherdmom said:


> Oh Dani don't derail a good thread because you want to snipe at me. She asked I answered. You want to battle out my opinion start a new thread. I don't want this one shut down over something silly. If people get to be elite by education or by wealth it is still has the same effects on the breed. Neither you nor I want to see the non elite indiscriminately breeding.


You brought up that only the "elite" control the breedings...then did your whole "power and rich" definition, and then went on about nobility. In my experience, I disagree with you. Breeders are hardly rolling in the money or power. Me disagreeing with you isn't derailing a thread. Unless you can't handle it and go off. 

Not sure why you or I are commenting on this thread. It's a thread about breeders and the qualities they look for and test in their breeding stock. I'm just tired of seeing these back handed attacks on breeders actually doing SOMETHING with their dogs, breeders that have been "working" the breed for years and sometimes decades, bickering about who is doing enough, who is doing it right, who sucks at life, etc....You and I both know that saying "only the elite control the breed" is not a compliment. At best it was a slight, and at worst it was a dig at those "doing it right" and charging for it. Anyway, you support who you want to support, and I'll support who I want to support. As always.


----------



## lhczth

martemchik said:


> T
> I guess to me…scores matter mostly because we’re expected to be breeding the exceptional animals. Whatever the chosen venue…a higher score points to a better animal.



No, a higher score means one of two things:

1. A better animal with a better trainer
2. An average animal with a better trainer (no, good trainers don't handle junk dogs, but they don't always handle the best dogs). 

Too many exceptional breeding dogs were not the high scoring dogs. Were not the winning dogs. They were down there in the pack, but breeders were smart enough to see the quality of the animal despite the bad training or bad scores. Scores don't reproduce.


----------



## lhczth

*ADMIN hat coming on. Dani, Shepherdmom your discussion will end now. 

Thank you. *


----------



## GatorDog

lhczth said:


> No, a higher score means one of two things:
> 
> 1. A better animal with a better trainer
> 2. An average animal with a better trainer (no, good trainers don't handle junk dogs, but they don't always handle the best dogs).
> 
> Too many exceptional breeding dogs were not the high scoring dogs. Were not the winning dogs. They were down there in the pack, but breeders were smart enough to see the quality of the animal despite the bad training or bad scores. Scores don't reproduce.


I do agree with this, but I don't like the mentality here that because a dog is capable of high scores, they aren't as good as the dog lacking good training or control with lower scores. Dogs with high points can show power just as much as the out of control dog. 

Low points don't mean its a crappy dog and high points don't mean it's a robot sport dog. People need to stop blasting generalizations..


----------



## Cschmidt88

Obviously I am not a breeder, but it something that interests me and I may like to get into in the future so I've put a good amount of thought into it.

I 100% agree with the dog needing to be a good companion as well. I have boarded dogs that had to be kenneled because they would drive you (or themselves) up the wall otherwise. I'm not sure if it's simply coincidence or not, but the dogs I've met like that were also nervy. I had to keep a close eye on their body language when taking them out in public. And while I feel you should still be aware of your dog, you should not feel like to need to be on guard all the time. You should be able to relax and trust the dog to handle social situations appropriately. 

Being a diabetic, I am able to train my dogs as actual functioning service dogs. And I really love this as a test of a dog's overall stability because my dogs have been put into so many different and pressing situations while on the job. Huge crowds, people running past screaming, people following us while barking/growling at my dog, people in weird costumes, unusual animals, etc. 

They have to be able to read situations well, adjust to their surroundings, focus on the task at hand, and more importantly settle for long periods of time if asked. Being neutral to people and other dogs would be ideal.

These are things I would look for in my dog prior to breeding, however I would expect them to be able to go out and do real protection work on top of it, taking on a serious threat with confidence, and still go back to doing service dog work at the end of the day.

As far as traits I would not tolerate, like I mentioned earlier a lack of an off switch is not okay with me. Nervy dogs who are overly distrusting and insecure around stangers, basically if I don't feel like I can trust my dog in a public settings. I don't like trigger happy overly sharp dogs. A clear head is extremely important to me as well, if the dog does not handle/think under stress well, it's not a dog I'd like to own. I feel there needs to be a balance between control and power in protection work. 

Structure is still important to me as well though, of course fitting the breed standard but certain traits I personally wouldn't be comfortable breeding. Very weak pasterns for example, the front assembly of the dog, to me, is one of the most important aspects of the overall dog as it takes most of the beating. I would not be comfortable breeding a dog with a front assembly notable lacking angle either. These traits will lead to quicker degeneration of the joints and increased chance of injury. 

I'm a firm believer in the ideal all-around working dog including a correct body. Not only to decrease the likelihood of injuries on the job/during sport but also for work longevity and overall performance ability.


(sorry if this seems out of place, I haven't read the entirety of the thread, just answering the original question.)


----------



## lhczth

GatorDog said:


> I do agree with this, but I don't like the mentality here that because a dog is capable of high scores, they aren't as good as the dog lacking good training or control with lower scores. Dogs with high points can show power just as much as the out of control dog.
> 
> Low points don't mean its a crappy dog and high points don't mean it's a robot sport dog. People need to stop blasting generalizations..


I doubt you have ever seen me attack high scoring winning dogs or say that high scoring dogs can't show power. All I am arguing with is that high scores always indicate the best dogs. They do not.


----------



## martemchik

lhczth said:


> I doubt you have ever seen me attack high scoring winning dogs or say that high scoring dogs can't show power. All I am arguing with is that high scores always indicate the best dogs. They do not.


I think that in a bubble...without having other information available...you have to lean towards the fact that a higher scoring dog (and presumably at a higher level competition) is a better dog.

The bubble doesn't exist in the real world because we do have a lot of other information to go off of...but if you were making a face to face comparison of two dogs, the higher scoring dog gets the check mark for scoring higher. Many of the other things breeders look at are very subjective, and so they are important, but they are all weighed differently in each and every breeder's decision making process (like valuing prey drive more than defense or other drives depending on the breeder's personal goals). Depending on experience, and personal bias, two people can see two completely different things in one dog. I think there was a thread recently about dogs with a lack of strong nerves being called civil...things like that are very subjective. A score, possibly from the same competition, will always be objective.

And I do agree...there are definitely breeding quality dogs, and even exceptional dogs that do not score high. With those dogs, a lot more leg work is necessary by the person deciding to breed them. It is very much by chance or even luck that the dog is even known to the breeder.


----------



## gsdsar

martemchik said:


> And I do agree...there are definitely breeding quality dogs, and even exceptional dogs that do not score high. With those dogs, a lot more leg work is necessary by the person deciding to breed them. It is very much by chance or even luck that the dog is even known to the breeder.



I agree with this. I have known some exception USAR GSD that unless you were in this world, people would never know about. Some have IPO scores and experience, some do not. But they are exceptional dogs. Ones who, if I had a nice bitch, I would breed to without hesitation. 

Scores and placements do bring a dog into the limelight. It's up to the breeder to evaluate the bigger picture There is more to this breed than IPO. Being able to search out new dogs, that don't have the name and numbers, Is up to a breeder. 

One day I want to breed. And if and when that happens, IPO will be a factor, but so will other things. Overall disposition, ability to work in truly stressful situations, true nerve strengths, hunt drive, proper structure, and honestly, figuring out what I want to produce. What is the ultimate goal of my program. Now, I think that is a "jack of all trades, master of none".


----------



## onyx'girl

gsdsar said:


> One day I want to breed. And if and when that happens, IPO will be a factor, but so will other things. Overall disposition, ability to work in truly stressful situations, true nerve strengths, hunt drive, proper structure, and honestly, figuring out what I want to produce. What is the ultimate goal of my program. Now, I think that is a "jack of all trades, master of none".


I hope I'm around long enough to see what you produce. Because you sound like a breeder I'd love to get a puppy from!


----------



## Vandal

I'm pretty much a one sport person myself. For me, SchH could tell you pretty much all you need to know, including how the dog might perform in other areas. The rules and the way it was originally set up was rather brilliant in how well it tested the GSD. 
Contrary to what people might think, you can test fight drive, and so on, working them with just a sleeve on, the rest is just not necessary IMO although I have trained with police depts. and put my dogs in those scenarios in the past. I can't say I was particularly surprised by what the dogs did there. Maybe because in the places I trained, we were already doing things off the field with our dogs. That was rather common to work them in weird places years ago, at least with the people I trained with.

That's not to say people can't do whatever they want and I am sure, ( especially the way IPO is done now), other activities will help them learn what I have been saying in this thread all along. It's about understanding the dog and what the behaviors they show are saying about his character. You work enough dogs, (especially as a helper ), and if you have been trained right and been lucky enough to have someone experienced and knowledgeable to guide you, you will start to figure it out and see into the dog. You will see the similarities in the dogs from certain lines, how being a little shaky, (or not), in one area crosses over into others, etc, etc. After you do that for a good while, (IMO years), THEN maybe you could consider breeding...I mean if you want to do that to yourself, because it can be a rather unpleasant activity. Especially nowadays.

Contrary to what some may think, I am a big supporter of SchH but I would like to see it's usefulness preserved. I hate hearing it called "just a sport" because of all of the things I just said. I am hoping, with the help of a few other people, that we can raise the bar and restore some of the purpose in it. There are many reasons we need to do that in order to preserve it and protect our ability to participate in it from the likes of AR groups, etc. 
I don't complain about things I couldn't care less about. I have worked my dogs in this from the beginning, I don't like the changes and the skirting the rules that goes on now. It has hurt the breed and it has hurt the sport IMO. People new should want to understand why people are upset vs just getting defensive about it or thinking we resent all the great improvements in training. There is a valid reason for the complaints.

It was never perfect, I was one of the few trying to prevent 'some' people from being way too hard on their dogs, way back then. Now, it has swung all the way over to the other side and that will have consequences eventually. The dogs do need to see some stress to truly be tested and the sport does need people who understand that, not just how to remove as much as possible through training. It also needs people to promote it the right way or it will die. 

As for scores, I can get excited by them when I see certain judges handing them out. Those judges however, are oddly rarely ever asked to judge at most of the clubs. lol. There is a human nature thing here where people want to win and boy do we see LOTS of V scores nowadays. Kind of like the definition of pronounced in the Sieger Show. Nothing in the definition of it has anything to do with pronounced.


----------



## gsdsar

onyx'girl said:


> I hope I'm around long enough to see what you produce. Because you sound like a breeder I'd love to get a puppy from!



Aw thanks. But it's a long way off! Still in the research phase, but it's been a dream for a while. 

I have seen great IPO dogs shut down on a rubble pile. It takes an extraordinary dog to do that type of work. And that's what I want to produce. 

My dream dog is one that can do both IPO and USAR. They are very few and far between. But I have met them. To me there is nothing better than watching a solid confident GSD on the rubble. It's such a crazy place, too many GSD overthink it and shut down. Even when they are titled in IPO. 

Ok thread derail done. Off to do some training.


----------



## lhczth

martemchik said:


> I think that in a bubble...without having other information available...you have to lean towards the fact that a higher scoring dog (and presumably at a higher level competition) is a better dog.
> 
> The bubble doesn't exist in the real world because we do have a lot of other information to go off of...but if you were making a face to face comparison of two dogs, the higher scoring dog gets the check mark for scoring higher. Many of the other things breeders look at are very subjective, and so they are important, but they are all weighed differently in each and every breeder's decision making process (like valuing prey drive more than defense or other drives depending on the breeder's personal goals). Depending on experience, and personal bias, two people can see two completely different things in one dog. I think there was a thread recently about dogs with a lack of strong nerves being called civil...things like that are very subjective. A score, possibly from the same competition, will always be objective.


Breeding in a bubble would be a very poor way to run a good working dog program.


----------



## Smithie86

High scores do not indicate a high level dog, unless it is trialed under strong conditions that truly test the dogs, including strong helpers and judges.

Watch dogs that go to the World level events; especially at the FCI.

I have seen videos of a supposed V rated dog in all 3 phases - high 290's in a club trial. Dog went to two Regional level events. Barely passed with low to mid 70's each time in all 3 phases......


----------



## GatorDog

Smithie86 said:


> High scores do not indicate a high level dog, unless it is trialed under strong conditions that truly test the dogs, including strong helpers and judges.
> 
> Watch dogs that go to the World level events; especially at the FCI.
> 
> I have seen videos of a supposed V rated dog in all 3 phases - high 290's in a club trial. Dog went to two Regional level events. Barely passed with low to mid 70's each time in all 3 phases......


Agree. I do think that scores need to be evaluated based on the elements of the trials individually.


----------



## Vandal

All these prerequisites that have to be in place. But people wonder why some question the value of it.


----------



## Smithie86

GatorDog said:


> Agree. I do think that scores need to be evaluated based on the elements of the trials individually.


Agree. I look at the trial, the helpers, the judge and the conditions....


----------



## mycobraracr

I can see how IPO can show us things, and I'm capable of seeing that. What I don't agree with is saying it shows us everything. It's hard enough to find a dog with strong guarding behavior now days. Watching video's of WUSV last year and a lot if not most are barking at the sleeve, pushed to the sleeve side of the helper. These are dogs scoring in the 90's. Watching training videos where the helper in the blind throws a tug/pillow out of the blind for the dog to go get as a reward. How is that guarding? Where in IPO does it show a dog working away from the handler? What part of IPO shows this? In SAR, PD, Military work, the dogs must be capable of this. Where does it show a majority of environmental stressors? If it truly shows all these things and nothing is wrong with the system, then why are we seeing less and less GSD's suitable for real work? Be it service, SAR, or Dual Purpose. Now in this thread we are saying that club level doesn't mean anything. Doesn't that also mean there is a problem? It hardly sounds like a system setting people up for success. 

I was at a trial where a dog going for it's 3 came off the sleeve three times. Every time the helper stopped let the dog re-grip and continued on. The dog "earned" it's title with a mid 80's score. I recently went to a large IPO event. Not trial, more like a seminar, fun weekend, where handlers, helpers and people from all over came. It was one of the most fun dog events I've been to. I did hear multiple times though from trainers/handlers to not work their dogs on strange helpers because it could ruin their training. Is this the mentality we need to strive for? Our dogs are so delicate that god forbid they see a different helper (Both helpers in the discussion were national level)? 

I've worked dogs that have placed very well at nationals. I've worked dogs that have been to worlds. To say that just because they made it to that level that they were without issues would be a lie. Change their norm and you see something very different. Those dogs proved they were great for IPO, not necessarily for other things. IPO promotes a certain type of dog. Other sports want a completely different type of dog. Is one any worse than the other? 

I know this probably stepped on some toes. So be it. I'm not saying there are no great dogs in IPO. There are. But we are lying to ourselves if we say it tells us all we need to know. The proof is in what's happening to the breed. It's becoming more and more specialized. The funny thing, is when you get out to every type of venue you can find, you always find the die hards of that venue. No other venue is as hard or great as theirs. All venues have their strengths and weaknesses. They all look for something different.


----------



## Vandal

My post talked about SchH, so I'm safe from that rant. SchH doesn't exist anymore. lol.

I was thinking about that the other day. You didn't used to see so many dogs who didn't bark well...I mean years ago like the 70s and 80s and even into the 90s the dogs would bark without magic tricks to get them to do that. 
Much of the reason was because of the dogs and the level of fight drive in those dogs. That's where good guarding comes from, not from play or prey or "rewarding" three barks over and over by slipping the sleeve. That's actually part of the problem....or almost all of it actually.

During the 2000's we saw all the dogs doing silent guards...mostly again because of the training but also the types of dogs and the over-emphasis on prey behaviors including this continuing stupidity with the dog pulling away from the stick and the threat and the exaggerated pulling all the way behind the helper on the escape. All done thru training to try to make the dog appear to be powerful.
That's the problem now, clever training that results in dogs mimicking the behaviors of a really good dog.... without having to be one.


----------



## Vandal

Worse yet are all the ignorant people just eating it up. Again, no ability to read dogs or understand what they are seeing. IPO does not teach you about dogs like SchH once did.


----------



## mycobraracr

I'm talking from my real life experiences. I've been the decoy in a dark room of a building where a dog knew I was there but wouldn't go past the edge of the light. I've been the decoy in a building with slick floors and automatic doors that the dog wouldn't go through. I've been the decoy behind a tarp that the dog wouldn't engage. I've seen dogs do fine with a cap gun, but bring out anything bigger and watch them shut down. These same dogs on an open field look great. One in particular that I'm thinking of is one of my favorite dogs to work. Puts on a great show handles the field pressure like a champ. Comes in hard, fast, with a gorgeous launch. Will bite whatever is presented without hesitation. He's socially stable in public and public events. Get him off a field into some different situations and you would think it was a different dog.


----------



## onyx'girl

Vandal said:


> My post talked about SchH, so I'm safe from that rant. SchH doesn't exist anymore. lol.
> 
> I was thinking about that the other day. You didn't used to see so many dogs who didn't bark well...I mean years ago like the 70s and 80s and even into the 90s the dogs would bark without magic tricks to get them to do that.
> Much of the reason was because of the dogs and the level of fight drive in those dogs. That's where good guarding comes from, not from play or prey or "rewarding" three barks over and over by slipping the sleeve. That's actually part of the problem....or almost all of it actually.
> 
> *During the 2000's we saw all the dogs doing silent guards...mostly again because of the training but also the types of dogs and the over-emphasis on prey behaviors including this continuing stupidity with the dog pulling away from the stick and the threat and the exaggerated pulling all the way behind the helper on the escape. All done thru training to try to make the dog appear to be powerful.*
> That's the problem now, clever training that results in dogs mimicking the behaviors of a really good dog.... without having to be one.


is this a regional thing, as I've heard that prey is promoted in certain clubs, mostly out on the west coast. 
As far as the hold and bark in the blind,
A place I train, the dog should bark at least 50 times in the blind after running them(6) to build stamina. The helper often has to keep the dog engaged to get to that 50 count. I know it is training, not trial, yet I like to see a dog push the helper to keep the helper engaged, not the other way around. Of course dirty bumping isn't what I want, but at least a dog that will power up and not down when guarding. The high jumps also aren't something that is impressive, yet others enjoy seeing a dog up in the helpers face. To me, it is putting the energy where it isn't needed, and will gas the dog eventually.


----------



## mycobraracr

onyx'girl said:


> The helper often has to keep the dog engaged to get to that 50 count. I know it is training, not trial, yet I like to see a dog push the helper to keep the helper engaged, not the other way around.


So here is something else I see. Yes see, in person. Dogs in the blind, dogs getting flat, helper umm.... lets say agitates dog with a whip or stick. Dog is not on a line getting held back. The dog does not engage helper. If I'm um... agitating a dog with an object, is that not a threat? Yet the dogs do not engage. Are they truly in a guarding behavior? I want to see dogs who are daring me to make a move. I feel it in every movement they make. They are willing me with their eyes to make their day, move so they can bite me.

Edit: I've also seen the silent guard happening a lot. Not in the blind Jane but on the field. In the cases I see it, it is usually because one of two things. 1) the dog has a week bark. Either from genetics or being in the wrong drive. 2) Everyone is more concerned with the all mighty point and they are afraid of their dog getting dirty. Less chance to get dirty if they sit there patiently waiting.


----------



## Vandal

> s this a regional thing, as I've heard that prey is promoted in certain clubs, mostly out on the west coast.


LOL....you have got to be joking.


----------



## Vandal

Yes, it's liberal California that causes people to train that way. hahaha....
I see it everywhere and in Europe. Gimmicks and like I said, training that teaches the dogs to mimic the behavior of really good dogs...minus the the really strong behaviors because you know....grip might not be full otherwise. 
You don't teach a dog who wants to bite or fight how to do that but we hear so much about "working the grip" and all the wedge sleeves that are going to teach the dog to fly in on the long bite etc etc. It's flat out ridiculous and it is not just in one area.


----------



## onyx'girl

I didn't mean Cali in general but the northern coast included...just what I have heard, nothing I've witnessed so thats why I asked. Where I train, it is about balance.


----------



## GatorDog

Gimmicks apparently are "in". Or maybe it's just evolution of the dogs and the training? Or maybe I'm just ignorant.


----------



## Vandal

Could be and yes they are "in". Are the dogs better? Not really.....a huge percentage of the GSDs don't do bitework like they used to. What happened? Do you know?


----------



## lhczth

Gimmicks are being used. Maybe not everywhere, but they are used to make the dogs appear to be something they are not. It isn't evolution unless it is just to create a picture because those trainer lack the skills to develop the dogs correctly or to actually reach into the dogs and bring out what is naturally there. 

I am not generalizing or saying it is everywhere, but it does exist.


----------



## GatorDog

Why is it a gimmick? Why can't it be just a new way of training?


----------



## Vandal

If we are talking about protection work, there has been years of gimmick training that has basically contributed to the atrophy of the traits the dogs are supposed to be using in that phase. 
Do you really believe all the dogs that are pulling the sleeve all the way behind the helper now were born that strong and just suddenly showed up ? Do you think the dogs pull away without the helper hitting them in the legs with the whip? A strong dog will push in and fight but we now have people training for points more than to see who the dogs are. That has hurt the breed. Look at the show dogs...they used to actually bite and while not quite like the working lines, it was NOTHING like it is now. That doesn't bother you even a tiny little bit? 

Now those wedge sleeves are everywhere. I've trained dogs long enough to know that first, a very good dog doesn't need the sleeve held away from the body to come in hard and fast. They do it naturally because they have fight drive and that is genetic. If there is a better word than gimmick, I don't know what it is.


----------



## lhczth

Teaching a dog to bark at a ball in the blind is a gimmick. Having a dog bark in a box to keep it centered is a gimmick (2 examples). A good helper working dogs with correct temperament and drives doesn't need gimmicks to create the perfect picture.


----------



## GatorDog

Vandal said:


> If we are talking about protection work, there has been years of gimmick training that has basically contributed to the atrophy of the traits the dogs are supposed to be using in that phase.
> Do you really believe all the dogs that are pulling the sleeve all the way behind the helper now were born that strong and just suddenly showed up ? Do you think the dogs pull away without the helper hitting them in the legs with the whip? A strong dog will push in and fight but we now have people training for points more than to see who the dogs are. That has hurt the breed. Look at the show dogs...they used to actually bite and while not quite like the working lines, it was NOTHING like it is now. That doesn't bother you even a tiny little bit?
> 
> Now those wedge sleeves are everywhere. I've trained dogs long enough to know that first, a very good dog doesn't need the sleeve held away from the body to come in hard and fast. They do it naturally because they have fight drive and that is genetic. If there is a better word than gimmick, I don't know what it is.


The reasoning behind holding the sleeve away from the body is to get the dogs targeting sleeve side on the long bite to prevent dead center hits and further injury, as far as I've been shown recently. Safety as a concern doesn't upset me at all.


----------



## Vandal

Doesn't matter what they say it is for. I work dogs as the helper. I know what helps them and doing that...does. They can say it's about safety and maybe really believe that but the dogs are responding to something other than what they say.We weren't crippling dogs years back...somehow, they manged to catch them without this stuff.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Lol watching vids from the 90s in Schh you see more then your fair share of crappy B and H. Plenty of inconsistensy in the intensity and handler conflict shown in those "world level" dogs' guarding.

As for the dog sliding to the sleeve side, that does not indicate a weak dog. Its simply a dog that has been biting that sleeve on that side from a pup. Thats where he knows to go, thats where he has been taught to release his aggression. I have seen some real as **** dogs guard sleeve side.
I have a Mali right now that comes into the blind like a junkyard dog, super active and serious in the blind. Guards sleeve side because of previous training.

Helper has started wearing a soft sleeve on the right arm to switch up the reward..dog had no issue biting that arm. 

As for throwing a prey object to reward the HB, that is generally to prevent dogs from anticipating the grip and fading to the sleeve side of the helper. Thus the reward is usually tossed to the right. 
Modern training seems to be moving away from grips in the blind and also direct rewards for the H and B.
The helper will agitate the dog on a back tie, get him barking before rewarding he steps back then comes back in for the reward.

Its rare to see dogs with a super nice active guard that does not diminish in intensity without help from helper of handler.


----------



## GatorDog

Vandal said:


> Doesn't matter what they say it is for. I work dogs as the helper. I know what helps them and doing that...does. They can say it's about safety and maybe really believe that but the dogs are responding to something other than what they say.We weren't crippling dogs years back...somehow, they manged to catch them without this stuff.


 I know a friend who's dog dislocated her jaw on a long bite. Crippled. Can't say it doesn't happen.


----------



## lhczth

Not always. Often used to teach weak dogs to come in fast and not put on the breaks. It removes the pressure by taking the bite object away from the helper.


----------



## GatorDog

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Lol watching vids from the 90s in Schh you see more then your fair share of crappy B and H. Plenty of inconsistensy in the intensity and handler conflict shown in those "world level" dogs' guarding.
> 
> As for the dog sliding to the sleeve side, that does not indicate a weak dog. Its simply a dog that has been biting that sleeve on that side from a pup. Thats where he knows to go, thats where he has been taught to release his aggression. I have seen some real as **** dogs guard sleeve side.
> I have a Mali right now that comes into the blind like a junkyard dog, super active and serious in the blind. Guards sleeve side because of previous training.
> 
> Helper has started wearing a soft sleeve on the right arm to switch up the reward..dog had no issue biting that arm.
> 
> As for throwing a prey object to reward the HB, that is generally to prevent dogs from anticipating the grip and fading to the sleeve side of the helper. Thus the reward is usually tossed to the right.
> Modern training seems to be moving away from grips in the blind and also direct rewards for the H and B.
> The helper will agitate the dog on a back tie, get him barking before rewarding he steps back then comes back in for the reward.
> 
> Its rare to see dogs with a super nice active guard that does not diminish in intensity without help from helper of handler.


It's this concept that apparently isn't accepted. Apparently reward placement isn't a real thing. Must be a gimmick too.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

My Mal came in fast and hard to the body on courage tests..

We moved him to a wedge sleeve and fixed his targeting because I would prefer my dog to have a long working carreer.. Him getting jammed by an inexperienced helper not prepared for his speed proves nothing.


----------



## GatorDog

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> My Mal came in fast and hard to the body on courage tests..
> 
> We moved him to a wedge sleeve and fixed his targeting because I would prefer my dog to have a long working carreer..


Same with my female. Full speed and dead center is dangerous. Gimmick or not, I appreciate her to take the sleeve when she's rocketing downfield.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

GatorDog said:


> It's this concept that apparently isn't accepted. Apparently reward placement isn't a real thing. Must be a gimmick too.


 
Evidently...

"Same with my female. Full speed and dead center is dangerous. Gimmick or not, I appreciate her to take the sleeve when she's rocketing downfield. "

When your dealing with a truly fast dog, this is the smart thing to do. All these newfangled thangs us young uns do...


----------



## mycobraracr

Dogs will usually adapt. How do KNPV dogs and K9's come in? They tend to body check as they come in to absorb some momentum. Kimber does this on inexperienced helpers who don't "open the door" fast enough. Neck does not get jammed up. 

I fail to understand how a decoy throwing an object for a dog to get is good for guarding behavior. Once again showing no real purpose other than sport. Hey bad guys just throw something for the dog to go get. It tells me the dog is not guarding the man. It's guarding the toy.


----------



## Vandal

Well we can go back and forth about that, not saying no dog was ever hurt but not more often than now. It helps the more insecure dogs when you hold the sleeve away from the body. Making things more about the sleeve relieves the stress on the dog, even in the trial. Some of the training is certainly better, some of it is what I said. The show dogs really did used to bite and what has happened to SchH, the things we talked about earlier in this thread, has brought that about. There were big changes in the way protection work is done and there is a difference in the dogs now and no, it is not really good.

I'll say this, I've seen a few dogs I actually liked last year in the WUSV , I hope that continues because some of the training has gone back to some of the old ways of doing things and the dogs are responding to it. You don't get fight drive by working the dogs all in prey and some people are starting to realize it and use those ways to get better protection work.


----------



## Vandal

I don't train with the sleeve as a "reward". So, I guess this is just apples and oranges here.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

So...your dogs derive no pleasure from biting then?


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

mycobraracr said:


> Dogs will usually adapt. How do KNPV dogs and K9's come in? They tend to body check as they come in to absorb some momentum. Kimber does this on inexperienced helpers who don't "open the door" fast enough. Neck does not get jammed up.
> 
> I fail to understand how a decoy throwing an object for a dog to get is good for guarding behavior. Once again showing no real purpose other than sport. Hey bad guys just throw something for the dog to go get. It tells me the dog is not guarding the man. It's guarding the toy.


 
You are comparing a sleeve sport to a suit sport Myco. What is safe in one is most certainly not in another. 
My dog is hitting the sleeve head first. Encouraging him to body check the helper is non productive for my goals.

Its about creating the best guarding picture you can. No bumping, centred as possible etc. Bites in the blind can hurt that goal. If I was training for real work I probably wouldnt want anything thrown. That doesnt change the quality of the dog.


----------



## martemchik

Vandal said:


> I'll say this, I've seen a few dogs I actually liked last year in the WUSV , I hope that continues because some of the training has gone back to some of the old ways of doing things and the dogs are responding to it. You don't get fight drive by working the dogs all in prey and some people are starting to realize it and use those ways to get better protection work.


Can I ask how you have made the connection between the dogs you liked and the training methods "going back to the old ways." It's just an interesting statement to make considering there's no way you were able to actually see their training.


----------



## Vandal

> So...your dogs derive no pleasure from biting then?


What does that have to do with what I just said? The sleeve is not a reward, the sleeve is protection for your arm. What the helper does reinforces the behaviors in the dog. Is the sleeve slipped when the dog fights or shows power? Yes, SOMETIMES...mostly the helper reinforces the behavior. Protection work is between the helper and the dog. You give the sleeve to the dog as a constant "reward" and you lose quite a bit. The idea of the carry was to channel aggression into prey....and there's much more that goes along with that. People have either completely lost sight of that or they never knew. I suspect the latter in most cases.


----------



## Vandal

> Can I ask how you have made the connection between the dogs you liked and the training methods "going back to the old ways." It's just an interesting statement to make considering there's no way you were able to actually see their training.


 I didn't say I saw them train but I have talked to some people who did. I know what some of the people who are competing are doing but, it was more a general comment.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Maybe Im missing something, if your running exercises that culminate in a bite the dog is being rewarded..
Whether or not the sleeve is slipped doesnt change the fact that he is getting something he wants for doing something you want. Whether or not you slip the sleeve doesnt change that he got what he wanted.


----------



## Vandal

So protection work is about getting a toy from the bad guy? He wants that more than engaging in a fight with that same bad guy? Or maybe even protecting his handler? I know that last one is a stretch nowadays but....when you make protection work about the sleeve being a reward, is it still protection work?
They run down the field and get their "reward" That's what it is for you but that's not a gimmick? That's what you guys are saying there with the placement remarks.

You reinforce behaviors in the dog as the helper. The sleeve is slipped to reinforce behavior by allowing the dog to unload a bit. The goal for the dog is calmness and allowing the dog to hold the sleeve teaches him he gets calmness in the bite. It is not at all the same as a "reward". Some dogs want to take possession of the sleeve and will fight the helper for it, others want to fight and dominate the helper. Rewarding every exercise by handing the dog the sleeve or wedge, is not protection training. 

You guys can do whatever you want but I have worked many dogs and I've seen the mistakes with that way of viewing things. Many of the best clubs in Germany start the dogs with suspicion work. That is part of what I was referring to Max. They aren't using flirt poles. You have to set a certain attitude in the dog first, or it becomes too much about the sleeve and when that happens, you lose what the dog should be using in that phase.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

No protection work is about intensity and fight which is judged through the guard, grips and what the dog does on the grip.
An IPO dog is generally sleeve sure, or should be. Thats where he knows to bite and will bite. Slipping him the sleeve is a good way to signal the end to a protection exercise and make a meaningful reward. When your running multiple exercises in the same session to achieve a certain picture it just makes sense to have a consistent reward mechanism for the dog. Letting him bite the decoy, then outing him and repeating the exercise multiple times is imo not good training and leads to lacklustre work...kind of like what you see in those vids from the 90's. No clear win / reward for the dog, leads to flatter preformance.

IPO protection can show you whats in the dog but if you want to train for real life you obviously do it differently. Trying to do both in the same session wont get you far imo.

I like doing suspicion work with young dogs, I like table work, I like putting pressure on the dogs, I think it makes them look better in the C phase if they have what it takes.

However, I am training my dog in the context of the IPO field to preform a certain way to achieve the desired points. The things we do that are being called "gimicks" like tossing a reward or teaching better targeting with a wedge are simply better techniques to achieve the desired result which is winning and keeping the dog safe. You can do those things with a great dog and with a crap one. Doesnt change the quality of the dog.

In the end you see the excellent dogs generally rise to the top in IPO competition, the so so dogs generally cannot handle the pressure inherent in remaining precise, fast and intense throughout a trial. Their preformance suffers. 

If I want functional PP I will train outside of the field in a different way without an IPO sleeve.. 

I think many of the top sport dogs you see on the field would work well for real life type work if you changed their training. The drives and nerve are generally there in sufficient quantity to do whatever the handler puts his mind too. The fact remains that finding a dog for LE is still easier then finding one for top sport.


----------



## Vandal

What I said has nothing do with PP training. You simply don't understand what I said. Never talked about bites and outs and all that other non related stuff either. Just explained that carrying the sleeve is not about "reward". The handler rewards the dog, not the helper. 
Doesn't make sense to always slip the sleeve at the end of a session either. Depends on the dog. Some dogs should not carry the sleeve and there is a certain amount of time they should be allowed to hold it as well. Much more to it than the small part I explained in the last post but, you guys have clearly made up your mind already about how to do it all. Good luck.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Vandal said:


> What I said has nothing do with PP training. You simply don't understand what I said. Never talked about bites and outs and all that other non related stuff either. Just explained that *carrying the sleeve is not about "reward".*
> 
> Not always, but many dogs find it rewarding so it can be.
> 
> The handler rewards the dog, not the helper.
> 
> The Handler rewards the dog by controlling access to the helper..biting the helper is the ultimate reward for a good dog.
> 
> Doesn't make sense to always slip the sleeve at the end of a session either. Depends on the dog. Some dogs should not carry the sleeve and there is a certain amount of time they should be allowed to hold it as well. Much more to it than the small part I explained in the last post but, you guys have clearly made up your mind already about how to do it all. Good luck.


..............


----------



## cliffson1

There is difference in IPO and Sch in principle. Vandal is talking about Sch and Gator and Blitzkrieg are talking about IPO......IN PRINCIPLE!, imo.


----------



## holland

I am confused Sch is IPO they just changed the name???


----------



## Vandal

Once again, you don't understand what I am talking about and your responses make that clear. If a dog is out there working for the sleeve as the reward, the dog is not using the drives that phase was intended to put on display. When you don't use what is in the dog, it starts to go away. 

A reward comes from a dog's handler, it should not come from the helper or someone who is playing a bad guy. Now you want to kind of shift and say a good dog enjoys biting the helper....well yeah he does but the conversation was about the sleeve and this incorrect idea that the helper rewards the dog with it. 

Again, you don't understand the drives the dogs should be using in protection if you think the helper should be doing that over and over, nor do you understand how that impacts the drive the dog works in when it happens so often in a session. You also don't understand what I explained should be happening there, so you think I mean the dog should be working like a PP dog. This is what I said about the dog holding and carrying: " The sleeve is slipped to reinforce behavior by allowing the dog to unload a bit. The goal for the dog is calmness and allowing the dog to hold the sleeve teaches him he gets calmness in the bite. It is not at all the same as a "reward". "
That's one piece of the training and part of the path the helper is teaching the dog. Anymore the dogs are not loaded in the right drives, so, I can see how people fail to understand it. Most never see their dogs working in the drives that protection work is supposed to be using. 

The helper should be reinforcing behavior but not by slipping the sleeve constantly or rewarding the dog like the handler would in obedience. Making a courage test into something it was never intended to be with "reward placement" is not the idea either. Of course, they don't call it a courage test anymore so...more evidence that what goes on out on that field, doesn't have anywhere near as much to do with the natural drives and instincts a GSD is supposed to have as it used to, nor does it put those things on display. 

This is the problem with IPO now, and has been the problem with SchH for the last 15 years or so where so many people new to it think it's just a game or it's about rewarding the dog for doing an exercise vs working with the drives the dog was intended to be using in protection.

I know there are people who still understand how to work dogs in protection but those with less experience get the wrong idea about what is going on out there when they don't see all of how it is done or bother with trying to understand dogs and behavior. They think it's just this game where the dog prances around with his "reward" and again, not understanding the real purpose of the carry or holding the sleeve because they don't understand protection work.

The interaction the dog has with the helper should not be the same as with his handler. The handler can reward his dog, the helper's job is something else entirely.
This is where the difference in the dogs comes in as well and what's left of the protective instinct will go away unless things start to shift away from this kind of training and attitude.


----------



## holland

Cschmidt88 said:


> Obviously I am not a breeder, but it something that interests me and I may like to get into in the future so I've put a good amount of thought into it.
> 
> I 100% agree with the dog needing to be a good companion as well. I have boarded dogs that had to be kenneled because they would drive you (or themselves) up the wall otherwise. I'm not sure if it's simply coincidence or not, but the dogs I've met like that were also nervy. I had to keep a close eye on their body language when taking them out in public. And while I feel you should still be aware of your dog, you should not feel like to need to be on guard all the time. You should be able to relax and trust the dog to handle social situations appropriately.
> 
> Being a diabetic, I am able to train my dogs as actual functioning service dogs. And I really love this as a test of a dog's overall stability because my dogs have been put into so many different and pressing situations while on the job. Huge crowds, people running past screaming, people following us while barking/growling at my dog, people in weird costumes, unusual animals, etc.
> 
> They have to be able to read situations well, adjust to their surroundings, focus on the task at hand, and more importantly settle for long periods of time if asked. Being neutral to people and other dogs would be ideal.
> 
> These are things I would look for in my dog prior to breeding, however I would expect them to be able to go out and do real protection work on top of it, taking on a serious threat with confidence, and still go back to doing service dog work at the end of the day.
> 
> As far as traits I would not tolerate, like I mentioned earlier a lack of an off switch is not okay with me. Nervy dogs who are overly distrusting and insecure around stangers, basically if I don't feel like I can trust my dog in a public settings. I don't like trigger happy overly sharp dogs. A clear head is extremely important to me as well, if the dog does not handle/think under stress well, it's not a dog I'd like to own. I feel there needs to be a balance between control and power in protection work.
> 
> Structure is still important to me as well though, of course fitting the breed standard but certain traits I personally wouldn't be comfortable breeding. Very weak pasterns for example, the front assembly of the dog, to me, is one of the most important aspects of the overall dog as it takes most of the beating. I would not be comfortable breeding a dog with a front assembly notable lacking angle either. These traits will lead to quicker degeneration of the joints and increased chance of injury.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in the ideal all-around working dog including a correct body. Not only to decrease the likelihood of injuries on the job/during sport but also for work longevity and overall performance ability.
> 
> 
> (sorry if this seems out of place, I haven't read the entirety of the thread, just answering the original question.)


I take my dog to work -she has her tdi- (that is probably going to be ridiculed in this thread-lol)-but I love how she just seems to know if someone needs cheering up-she engages them with her ball. She has had people pull her tail -she does not react-she just knows somehow-also she just is very in tune to me...


----------



## Vandal

> She has had people pull her tail -she does not react-she just knows somehow-also she just is very in tune to me...


Nothing there to be criticized. GSDs are intuitive dogs and they should have the ability to recognize what is something to be concerned about and what isn't. I like those traits as well.


----------



## Smithie86

you can have excellent helpers and injuries still happen.


----------



## mycobraracr

This thread has gone away from the initial intentions. 

At the end of the day, all I was trying to see what people do to test dogs. IPO is not enough. Taking them around town with the addition of sport work is great, but still not enough. If we don't push our dogs hard enough to truly find their strengths and weaknesses then how can we appropriately pair them for breeding? Or decide that they are even breed worthy? If we won't do anything with them that could potentially cost them an all mighty point then how can we see who they are? If we can't see the flaws in current systems, then how can we improve on them? We are constantly talking about nerve strength, yet we are afraid to test for it. Maybe that's a problem? Too many are afraid to push too far. Isn't one of the things we look for is how a dog recovers from something? Not it's initial reaction? Doesn't that tell us a lot about the character of the dog?


----------



## martemchik

Jeremy, it sounds like you’re making the assumption that people that do IPO, only train those exercises, and never do anything different from the required exercises. Now…I know that as a helper that has worked in a variety of venues, you know that’s not true. Basically every club I have ever been to, definitely does more with the dogs in training than the trial picture. It might not be to the extreme that you may be discussing or envisioning, but most of the places will definitely do things to the dogs that aren’t what the dog will see in the trial. Most successful breeders are more than capable of recognizing the deficiencies of IPO and understand that it's not the whole picture, from the one's I've followed for a bit, the breeding decision is made more in training than on the field.

I know you don’t like IPO that much, but I can just as easily break down SDA, PSA, Mondio, and all the other things that are available for us to do and tell you how that doesn’t give you the information you might want as well. End of the day…the majority of dogs being produced by breeders involved in IPO, SDA, PSA, ect…are decent dogs and are meeting the demands of the market. You might not have GSDs in your area that are becoming K9s…but in Wisconsin, basically every K9 is a GSD. My tiny little suburb, with 18,000 people…has 2 active dual-purpose GSD K9s. One of them is my neighbor…and the dog has never had a live bite. The local facility that trains them is pretty much all GSD. Lots of imports from Germany, but guess what, they’re all coming from IPO tested parents and lines.

Most people barely have an IPO club with a competent enough helper nearby. To ask for people to now search out other venues will never get anywhere. Yeah, I have an SDA club nearby, not the most consistent of clubs though, and with the small amount of trials available nationally to even "prove" something on the field, its truly not worth my time investment. Each and every breeder makes their own decisions based on their knowledge, their values, and what type of dog they want to produce. If club level work in five venues is what someone holds dear, that’s fine. Other people want national level work in one, which is just fine as well. Both breeders have the ability to produce excellent dogs and to also produce duds. Historically speaking, there isn’t a blueprint to breeding “real working dogs.” They’ve come from all types of breeders and all types of testing. Many of the newer sports haven’t even been around long enough to really prove that dogs titled in those sports are any more successful at producing working dogs than Schutzhund has been.


----------



## Chris Wild

I don't think I agree with the statement that "IPO isn't enough". At least not without examining closely what is meant by it. I would agree that the mere presence of a title doesn't necessarily tell much about the dog these days. I would also agree that scores don't tell the full story and high scores alone certainly aren't enough. I don't even think being successful at high levels of competition alone is enough. It's safe to say a high level competition dog is probably a decent dog, but not safe to assume he is top notch. In many cases even watching a dog in a trial doesn't tell a lot these days.

But then there is the training. Someone who is out there every day for years, putting in the time and effort to train a dog in 3 very different activities, even if they only achieve a 70-70-80 at a trial... that person KNOWS their dog. And that person, if they truly look at the dog and at what the dog has been showing them and telling them along the way, has plenty of information to determine whether or not the dog is worthy of being bred. The helpers and club members who have been with them, week in and week out, along that journey probably do as well.

Now will the person take the insights into the core character of the dog that they've garnered and put them to good use, weighing things objectively, before deciding whether or not to breed, and then also put that information to good use when deciding who to breed the dog too? Well, who knows. That comes down to the individual ethics of the person. But the information about the dog IS there to use if they chose to use it.

To me, this has always been the value of a title. Not because the presence of the title means the dog is breed worthy or not, but because along the road to achieving that title the person doing the training knows the answer. That's of course assuming it's a legitimately earned title... not one of those "titled to IPO3 in 6 weeks but doesn't know what a dumbbell is or what fuß means" titles.  

This is also why, if I had to choose, I'd buy a dog from someone who actively works his/her dogs regularly but maybe doesn't title all of them before I'd buy a dog from someone who only purchases titled dogs, or sends the dogs away to be titled elsewhere. Because it's the knowledge gained in the process that is most important when it comes to making breeding decisions, and it doesn't do much good if that knowledge is held by someone else and not the person making the breeding decisions.

Now personally, I do enjoy participating in other venues as well. I love SDA, and have titled 3 dogs in it. I also enjoy AKC and UKC obedience on occasion and have put several obedience and rally titles on different dogs. Even though very remedial in general, I like putting CGCs on our dogs and I think the ATTS TT (and GSDCA TC if available) are good general temperament tests and we try to put those on our dogs as well when we have access to the tests.

We also live with our dogs. They are house dogs. They hang out in the house, sleep in the bed, and live together with us as a pack. They go on outings.... vacations, hiking, trips to the pet stores and farm stores and home improvement stores. We take them downtown sometimes, occasionally for big events like art fair and concerts in the parks. When I worked in an office I took different dogs to work with me regularly to hang out all day and my co-workers loved it. They are expected to be 100% trustworthy and approachable both out in public and with welcome visitors here at the house, and they are.

I have to say though that I haven't learned very much about each dog's individual personality by living with it as a pet or branching out into things like rally and obedience and SDA, that I didn't already have a pretty good idea of from training in SchH. At least not things that are important to breeding and really tell about the drive, nerve and overall character of the dog.

The only crucial thing I can think of that I have learned about the dogs in living with them that I wouldn't have seen just in training would be knowing that they do have nice "off switches" and can settle nicely in the house. If they were kennel dogs, I'd never have an opportunity to know that. Though truthfully, there are many little personality traits that one can see in training that would provide pretty good clues, so if one knows where to look and how to interpret it, I'm not even sure having them as house dogs is necessary to know if they'd be good house dogs or not.

As far as participating in other venues, I really can't think of much that I see anymore in my dogs doing those activities that I didn't already know about the dog just from training in SchH. I still do some of the other venues for fun, and because it's neat to collect lots of initials after a dog's name. And also in large part to demonstrate good ambassadors for the breed to the public and the AKC/UKC crowd that often have a bad perception of GSDs and dogs that do bitework. But I don't find other activities very valuable in the sense of learning more about the dog these days because they really don't show me anything new. 

Though this is definitely one of those things that comes with time and experience. When I first started training I often couldn't see the connections so I found branching out into other things to be more valuable from the information gathering standpoint. And I also found myself surprised or unsure how to interpret behavior a lot more often. Now I'm rarely surprised, though it does still happen at times. Most often when it does, sitting down and thinking about it in the context of what I already know about the dog usually makes things clear pretty quick. And looking back at past things that seemed odd or surprising at the time, knowing what I know now I can in most cases clearly see how behavior X on the SchH field is directly related to behavior Y in the AKC ring and behavior Z at the vet office and how they are all expressions of the same personality trait and shouldn't have been any surprise at all. It definitely took many years, and many dogs, to get to that point. And certainly there are plenty of people, like Anne, who are many years and many dogs ahead of me who can glean even more knowledge about a dog from less exposure, because they know what to look for and what it means and can learn volumes about a dog from observing minutia of behavior.


----------



## Liesje

As someone who does do just about everything with my dogs (including one sport I would wager that IPO is simply not a substitute for as far as what temperament is conducive) I would say that in general, "doing IPO" (as in doing legit training, not slapping a title on a dog in 4 months) does tell you a lot. I can observe a lot about dogs at IPO training outside of their performance/points. Which dogs are barking the *entire* time? Which dogs are thrashing and spinning in their kennels or snapping/gnawing on their crates? Which ones walk on and off the field like they are the boss and are looking at their handlers like "ok let's DO this" and which are indifferent, checked out, obsessed with another dog coming on/off the field, etc. Which ones get the runs at every trial? Which ones can the helpers approach in a neutral or friendly manner before or after the protection phase? Which ones are giving a child the stink eye? Which ones have the stamina to track, do obedience, come out twice for protection, socialize, and then maybe do some "fun" stuff later on a hot, humid day? Which ones get carsick on the way to training? I'm not saying whether these things are good/bad, but depending on what an individual person is looking for in their dogs, you can observe all of these things about one or two dozen dogs at any given day at an IPO club.


----------



## Catu

We all know that a kid full of "A+" at High School not necessarily means he/she will be the best professional in the future, yet colleges still use grades to filter their admissions.

Silly colleges...


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Vandal said:


> Once again, you don't understand what I am talking about and your responses make that clear. If a dog is out there working for the sleeve as the reward, the dog is not using the drives that phase was intended to put on display. When you don't use what is in the dog, it starts to go away.
> 
> 
> A reward comes from a dog's handler, it should not come from the helper or someone who is playing a bad guy. Now you want to kind of shift and say a good dog enjoys biting the helper....well yeah he does but the conversation was about the sleeve and this incorrect idea that the helper rewards the dog with it.
> 
> 
> Again, you don't understand the drives the dogs should be using in protection if you think the helper should be doing that over and over, nor do you understand how that impacts the drive the dog works in when it happens so often in a session. You also don't understand what I explained should be happening there, so you think I mean the dog should be working like a PP dog. This is what I said about the dog holding and carrying: " The sleeve is slipped to reinforce behavior by allowing the dog to unload a bit. The goal for the dog is calmness and allowing the dog to hold the sleeve teaches him he gets calmness in the bite. It is not at all the same as a "reward". "
> That's one piece of the training and part of the path the helper is teaching the dog. Anymore the dogs are not loaded in the right drives, so, I can see how people fail to understand it. Most never see their dogs working in the drives that protection work is supposed to be using.
> 
> The helper should be reinforcing behavior but not by slipping the sleeve constantly or rewarding the dog like the handler would in obedience. Making a courage test into something it was never intended to be with "reward placement" is not the idea either. Of course, they don't call it a courage test anymore so...more evidence that what goes on out on that field, doesn't have anywhere near as much to do with the natural drives and instincts a GSD is supposed to have as it used to, nor does it put those things on display.
> 
> This is the problem with IPO now, and has been the problem with SchH for the last 15 years or so where so many people new to it think it's just a game or it's about rewarding the dog for doing an exercise vs working with the drives the dog was intended to be using in protection.
> 
> I know there are people who still understand how to work dogs in protection but those with less experience get the wrong idea about what is going on out there when they don't see all of how it is done or bother with trying to understand dogs and behavior. They think it's just this game where the dog prances around with his "reward" and again, not understanding the real purpose of the carry or holding the sleeve because they don't understand protection work.
> 
> The interaction the dog has with the helper should not be the same as with his handler. The handler can reward his dog, the helper's job is something else entirely.
> This is where the difference in the dogs comes in as well and what's left of the protective instinct will go away unless things start to shift away from this kind of training and attitude.


 
Its not that I dont get what your talking about its just that I disagree... 
People on here love the word "fight". "My dog fights the helper". 
Very impressive so when the helper slips the sleeve why does he carry it away with a happy tail? Surely he is fighting the man, why doesnt he drop the sleeve and reattack immidiately?  

You can make as many disparraging remarks about modern day training techniques but the fact remains that dogs coming through those systems look better then dogs coming from oldschool systems for a reason. 
Lets be honest here I have seen vids of your training, there is nothing mysterious going on there. The bitework doesnt look any better then what you can find at many clubs. 


Here is what I do know, if you want to win you train like a winner. I also know that all those awesome dogs from the 90's trained in the "correct" drives look like club level dogs compared to the dogs and training of today.
Those dogs dont look any more real then whats on the field today. 

Personally I like a dog that brings the aggression in the guarding and biting exercises without requiring "help" from the decoy. They tend to be higher in prey and guess what thats a good thing. 
Medium/low drive high threshold dogs that fall out of drive unless the helper lays the leather on them every 5 seconds. They make great pets though.

The reason those dogs looked like crap on trial day is because all the help from the decoy and handler disappeared. 


I leave you with a video of the "great" Gildo a legend of the past.. He almost fell asleep in the B and H and was napping on the escape. I wont bother going on. Guess you had to be there though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_XIMqjRVtM


----------



## GatorDog

Since when did a difference of opinion make someone ignorant? Or is it really just the age requirement, yet again.


----------



## GatorDog

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Its not that I dont get what your talking about its just that I disagree...
> People on here love the word "fight". "My dog fights the helper".
> Very impressive so when the helper slips the sleeve why does he carry it away with a happy tail? Surely he is fighting the man, why doesnt he drop the sleeve and reattack immidiately?
> 
> You can make as many disparraging remarks about modern day training techniques but the fact remains that dogs coming through those systems look better then dogs coming from oldschool systems for a reason.
> Lets be honest here I have seen vids of your training, there is nothing mysterious going on there. The bitework doesnt look any better then what you can find at many clubs.
> 
> 
> Here is what I do know, if you want to win you train like a winner. I also know that all those awesome dogs from the 90's trained in the "correct" drives look like club level dogs compared to the dogs and training of today.
> Those dogs dont look any more real then whats on the field today.
> 
> Personally I like a dog that brings the aggression in the guarding and biting exercises without requiring "help" from the decoy. They tend to be higher in prey and guess what thats a good thing.
> Medium/low drive high threshold dogs that fall out of drive unless the helper lays the leather on them every 5 seconds. They make great pets though.
> 
> The reason those dogs looked like crap on trial day is because all the help from the decoy and handler disappeared.
> 
> 
> I leave you with a video of the "great" Gildo a legend of the past.. He almost fell asleep in the B and H and was napping on the escape. I wont bother going on. Guess you had to be there though...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_XIMqjRVtM


And the long bite, with the dog munching the sleeve like its corn on the cob with a 3/4 grip at best, and peeling out of the pocket like his ass is on fire..


----------



## Vandal

I am not the one fixated on the 90s videos and Gildo doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed. He was not trained in the way I am talking about, so you are way off base there.

However, since you brought him up, who that dog was is on clear display in more than one video. It isn't covered up by the training, not even a little bit. That is the point some people are trying to make and what SchH was for...so people could make better breeding decisions. 

Many of the so called "new systems" are based in the training I am talking about. They have just taken it and exaggerated what it is in some ways and most people don't understand what certain aspects of it were intended to do. It wasn't about what you think it is, and what many other people new to the sport think it is, and you can disagree all you want, you're still not correct.

Lots of people come here with their dogs who have been worked incorrectly, where it was so much about the sleeve and rewarding with it, resulting in problems. It's a big mess to try to fix because people don't understand what to do first or when to start their dog and how. Most of those people with the problems have done exactly what you are saying works.


----------



## GatorDog

Vandal said:


> I am not the one fixated on the 90s videos and Gildo doesn't have anything to do with what was being discussed. He was not trained in the way I am talking about, so you are way off base there.
> 
> However, since you brought him up, who that dog was is on clear display in more than one video. It isn't covered up by the training, not even a little bit. That is the point some people are trying to make and what SchH was for...so people could make better breeding decisions.
> 
> Many of the so called "new systems" are based in the training I am talking about. They have just taken it and exaggerated what it is in some ways and most people don't understand what certain aspects of it were intended to do. It wasn't about what you think it is, and what many other people new to the sport think it is, and you can disagree all you want, you're still not correct.
> 
> Lots of people come here with their dogs who have been worked incorrectly, where it was so much about the sleeve and rewarding with it, resulting in problems. It's a big mess to try to fix because people don't understand what to do first or when to start their dog and how. Most of those people with the problems have done exactly what you are saying works.


I also know lots of people who have their dog worked by less than qualified helpers thinking that the dog needs to be more "real", and that results in a whole different set of issues that I think are quite a bit more threatening to the training IMO.


----------



## onyx'girl

handlers need to be proactive then...I know we all start somewhere, there are always the 'first dog' learning mistakes.
I just started a discussion on a fb IPO helper page about young dogs being worked by new helpers(with direction from experienced helpers). 
I think there is much to learn by reading others experiences and opinions, and I am not going to argue with them, but read and enjoy that they actually share their experiences.


----------



## lhczth

GatorDog said:


> I also know lots of people who have their dog worked by less than qualified helpers thinking that the dog needs to be more "real", and that results in a whole different set of issues that I think are quite a bit more threatening to the training IMO.


Bad work is bad work. A helper that works a dog only on the surface and never delves deep to bring out everything the dog can be is doing bad work just as much as some idiot that starts beating on the dog to make him look more "real".


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Your over simplifying again. The type of training I am talking about is not about just feeding the dog a sleeve and slipping it repeatedly as you well know..at least I hope you do.

Too each their own in the end you either train for success or you train like they did 10-20 years ago and get nowhere.


----------



## Chris Wild

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Too each their own in the end you either train for success or you train like they did 10-20 years ago and get nowhere.


Or, since this did start as a breeding thread, you do the 3rd option and train to learn about the dog and allow the dog's innate traits to be brought out.

I think there has always been a split between people who do SchH as a breed test, to test their dogs and to learn about dogs themselves, and the people who do it as a sport for points. There are just more of the later these days it seems, and the switch from SchH to IPO is just one symptom of that.


----------



## lhczth

And back to the original topic. Someone asked how breeders test hunt drive. I actually do scent and search work mostly for toys, but have used other scents. Both visual and blind searches in fields, on "rubble" piles, in buildings, etc. Yes, it does tend to interfere a bit with IPO tracking at times, but not enough for me to stop.


----------



## Chris Wild

I remember a few years ago sitting in a friend's kitchen having morning coffee with Helmut Raiser as he went on a rant about the same sort of discussion.... that IPO has become useless as a breed test because it no longer tests dogs, it tests training. It is the trainer who is on display, not the dog. That what SHOULD be a good performance from the standpoint of what it shows about the dog, these days will barely pass, or maybe even fail, because it lacks the flash and precision judges want to see these days. Pass or fail too often depends on things that come from training, not from the heart of the dog. 

He also pointed out that it takes longer to title dogs these days than it used to, because of the level of training required and that most of that effort and time is put into trying to showcase the handler's skill, striving for something that has no bearing on the temperament of the dog (he was speaking particularly about obedience here, but it applies to all phases). All of which is fine for a competitive sport since the very nature of such a sport is as a competition between trainers, with dogs in many ways being just a part of the sporting equipment. It is not fine for something that was intended to uncover the character of a dog and showcase it. All of that being part of the impetus behind starting RSV2000 and it's rules allowing breeding rights to dogs who aren't yet titled but who have been tested by approved testers. It is after all the dog's genetics, not training, that passes onto the puppies.

But then he's probably just another old, white haired fuddy duddy that doesn't know what he's talking about any more.....


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Chris Wild said:


> Or, since this did start as a breeding thread, you do the 3rd option and train to learn about the dog and allow the dog's innate traits to be brought out.
> 
> I think there has always been a split between people who do SchH as a breed test, to test their dogs and to learn about dogs themselves, and the people who do it as a sport for points. There are just more of the later these days it seems, and the switch from SchH to IPO is just one symptom of that.


If your playing to win your putting a lot more pressure on the dog then if your just there to get a title or have fun.

I play to win but I wont keep or work a sub par dog. Not personally worth the time and effort.


----------



## Chris Wild

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> If your playing to win your putting a lot more pressure on the dog then if your just there to get a title or have fun.


Talk about a sweeping generalization to assume how people train, and how their dogs are tested based on them putting a different importance on points than you do yourself.

Also worth pointing out that those dogs of yesteryear that you think are crap and nothing compared to the dogs of today for the most part had a lot more pressure put on them in, in all phases, than most sport dogs see today. Training methods and techniques have certainly improved in many ways, and are far kinder to the dogs in general, but also don't put the pressure on the dogs or *gasp* conflict with the handler, that they used to so a dog who would have folded under pressure in the past can excel today.


----------



## GatorDog

I do not think thats something we should be bragging about. That the dogs were tested so well because we used to lay into them in training and they didn't just lay down and quit? And that its no comparison now because we are better at it? Maybe smarter? More humane?

Yeah, I don't need to wail on my dogs to prove their strength. If thats what it comes down to, then I'm out.


----------



## Vandal

Oh for crying out loud. lol. Is that what Chris said? No it isn't.
We have people now who think you should not ever correct a dog. Most people don't even know what a correction is nowadays. That's the "conflict" she is talking about not "wailing on dogs".


----------



## Chris Wild

No question today's training is more humane, more fair to the dog and a whole lot more enjoyable for the handler as well. But choosing to get away from older, harsher methods doesn't mean one can't see the simple fact that a dog who could work through them and do well was tested in a way that today's click/treat/toy trained dogs are not. 

And when it comes to testing traits needed for working dogs, particularly police/military/protection dogs who may face a lot more in service than the most callous trainer could ever devise, one can't deny that some of the older methods may have value for the same reason that boot camp is anything but rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## Chris Wild

Thank you, Anne. Yes, that is what I am talking about. Almost seems like different languages being spoken on here some days.

And this certainly isn't limited to SchH either. Twice I have had a similar conversation with AKC people, one an obedience judge, about the horrid amount of broken stays that are seen these days at obedience shows. Enough that many people, myself included, are a bit leery of showing in Open due to fear of what the other dogs may do. I don't think I've been to a single show in the past few years where at least one dog, if not multiples, didn't get up and do something on the stays. This used to be a very, very rare occurrence because the dogs knew that they darn well better not move. Now when the biggest consequence is "no no Fluffy, you don't get a cookie", too many dogs view exercises as optional. The reliable dogs aren't beaten, they aren't ruined, they aren't depressed or lacking self esteem.... but they also know that they'd better stay put or they are not going to like what happened next.


----------



## GatorDog

Chris Wild said:


> Thank you, Anne. Yes, that is what I am talking about. Almost seems like different languages being spoken on here some days.
> 
> And this certainly isn't limited to SchH either. Twice I have had a similar conversation with AKC people, one an obedience judge, about the horrid amount of broken stays that are seen these days at obedience shows. Enough that many people, myself included, are a bit leery of showing in Open due to fear of what the other dogs may do. I don't think I've been to a single show in the past few years where at least one dog, if not multiples, didn't get up and do something on the stays. This used to be a very, very rare occurrence because the dogs knew that they darn well better not move. Now when the biggest consequence is "no no Fluffy, you don't get a cookie", too many dogs view exercises as optional. The dogs weren't beaten, they weren't ruined, they weren't depressed or lacking self esteem.... but they also knew that they'd better stay put or they were not going to like what happened next.


Totally agree with you there..I literally dipped my feet into AKC with Carma and was totally turned off by the broken down stays and loose dogs running around in Open.


----------



## GatorDog

Vandal said:


> Oh for crying out loud. lol. Is that what Chris said? No it isn't.
> We have people now who think you should not ever correct a dog. Most people don't even know what a correction is nowadays. That's the "conflict" she is talking about not "wailing on dogs".


I don't know of very many positive reinforcement only IPO trainers. Who are these people you're referring to?


----------



## Vandal

I worked with some very good trainers. Was there more pressure because of the stick and also how the dog viewed the helper and more training involving corrections? Yes. However, there were some very good trainers who understood dogs, were kind to their dogs and were not doing all the things people seem to accuse the entire generation of doing. 
I also saw idiots, just like I see now. People without a clue who are actually very hard on their dogs emotionally because they lack skills in the new way of doing things. Seems like people rarely even praise their dog in the training now. That's pretty huge to a GSD, your approval. A ball isn't the same thing but people really have lost sight of what the breed is. That's all I'm saying. It's this must compete attitude that just wasn't as prevalent then. It was about the dogs.


----------



## Xeph

Watched the video of Gildo. If anybody is interested, he barked a total of 57 times, lol


----------



## Vandal

I think they will be coming out with an App that counts barks soon but we appreciate your efforts.


----------



## cliffson1

If you judge dogs of thirty years ago by drives sought for excellence in IPO, then the dogs are gonna look less than stellar to those who can only assess through those prisms. Dogs bred today for sport are better equipped to do well in sport than ever before. This has led to a certain " type" of dog that is needed and sought in breeding programs. Drive, grips, launch, nerves, are code words that this community constantly use in breeding, assessing, and valuing the breed; much as croup, gait, front, reach, or angles are often the first words that come out of the mouth of the show community when they value excellence. Now if we were to talk to the trainers and procurement people of thirty years or more of military, LE, or guide dog programs to determine if they can as easily find working candidates for their programs as they did thirty years ago, ( let's not forget this breed has overwhelming numbers ), I think they would be very insightful into what is lacking today, or what is over emphasized today that makes the breed no longer the premier dog in their fields. So why can't guide dog programs go to just about any working dog breeder and get candidates for their program( all the pups aren't going to go to podium or even be sport candidates) so the other pups should be great candidates...Right? Or why are the urban SAR folks find its easier to find a good Mal to work the ruble piles than a GS when there are 20X more GS available in world to chose from. Now I know there are experts on this forum who in maybe seeing these dogs work or possibly trained a couple of times a person from these backgrounds, know more about why the breed is losing ground in these areas than these trainers or procurers who have been doing this for long enough to have trained the dogs of past and the dogs of today......but that isn't reality. 
I firmly believe that Sport and Show have placed such an emphasis on specific ideals necessary for excellence in their venues,( it funny but sport and show are not mentioned in standard of breed) that they really don't see the big picture that SAR, LE, Military, Guide dogs, Farm/Ranch work should always be uses that your breeding program can support. Sch was a good test for these traits as Vandal has adeptly explained, today's show and IPO breeding programs have drifted into their respective worlds that have led to a decrease in the use of the breed in areas of its legacy, in times when they are using dogs in these areas more than ever. The breed has evolved, partially because the goals of the testing mechanism for the maintenance of the breed has evolved to accommodate the show and sport world. Unfortunately, this has led to decline in the use of the breed in service and utility compared to the past.....and this is truly sad.

** fixed a typo, ADMIN


----------



## cliffson1

The fourth line should be "breeding programs"...... I can't navigate the time out on the edit.


----------



## martemchik

Funny, I don't see SAR, military, LE, guide dog in the standard either...


----------



## martemchik

It's funny that sport gets bashed on this forum...mostly because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to breed dogs if they were expected to all be "real working dogs." If all the sires and dams had to be a K9 or a guide dog or a military dog, this forum wouldn't exist...there wouldn't be a pet market because you'd be shrinking your breeding pool down so much that there wouldn't be any dogs available for anyone else but an actual working venue.

From what I see when it comes to K9 or guide dog selection, it's more who you know than how good your dogs really are. Want to complain about trainers? Well...a lot of trainers are good enough these days to get mediocre dogs trained in most things a police department would need.

Want to know why other breeds are being used for work? SPECIALIZATION. We do it with people, why not do it with dogs? A dog with more correct drives for guide work (like a lab) is easier to train and much more of a guarantee than a GSD from a random working line breeding program. The ORGANIZATIONS have figured that out. It has nothing to do with the constant highly biased opinion of a few members of this forum that the breeders aren't doing their job. It has more to do with trainers, who need to provide as many dogs as possible, realizing it's easier to work with a lab, than a GSD. It's the principle you all love to live by...jack of all trades, master of none. Guess what? When you have a particular job that needs to be done...you're going to go with a master. No working venue out there has a guide dog apprehending criminals and sniffing out drugs.

If placing a real working dog is the true sign of a successful breeding program, or just a prerequisite to breeding at all, no one would ever be able to start in the first place. And I guess at the end of the day, that's what established breeders want...less competition and less people that can potentially breed a better dog than they can.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> It's funny that sport gets bashed on this forum...mostly because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to breed dogs if they were expected to all be "real working dogs." If all the sires and dams had to be a K9 or a guide dog or a military dog, this forum wouldn't exist...there wouldn't be a pet market because you'd be shrinking your breeding pool down so much that there wouldn't be any dogs available for anyone else but an actual working venue.
> 
> From what I see when it comes to K9 or guide dog selection, it's more who you know than how good your dogs really are. Want to complain about trainers? Well...a lot of trainers are good enough these days to get mediocre dogs trained in most things a police department would need.
> 
> Want to know why other breeds are being used for work? SPECIALIZATION. We do it with people, why not do it with dogs? A dog with more correct drives for guide work (like a lab) is easier to train and much more of a guarantee than a GSD from a random working line breeding program. The ORGANIZATIONS have figured that out. It has nothing to do with the constant highly biased opinion of a few members of this forum that the breeders aren't doing their job. It has more to do with trainers, who need to provide as many dogs as possible, realizing it's easier to work with a lab, than a GSD. It's the principle you all love to live by...jack of all trades, master of none. Guess what? When you have a particular job that needs to be done...you're going to go with a master. No working venue out there has a guide dog apprehending criminals and sniffing out drugs.
> 
> If placing a real working dog is the true sign of a successful breeding program, or just a prerequisite to breeding at all, no one would ever be able to start in the first place. And I guess at the end of the day, that's what established breeders want...less competition and less people that can potentially breed a better dog than they can.


Thats not what other posters have been saying. They are not attacking sport or titles. They are clearly more concerned with rule changes in the sports that don't emphasise strong nerve. They are trying to keep more realistic dimensions and tests to get the 'right dogs'. At least thats what I have been reading.


----------



## Smithie86

Chris Wild said:


> Or, since this did start as a breeding thread, you do the 3rd option and train to learn about the dog and allow the dog's innate traits to be brought out.
> 
> I think there has always been a split between people who do SchH as a breed test, to test their dogs and to learn about dogs themselves, and the people who do it as a sport for points. There are just more of the later these days it seems, and the switch from SchH to IPO is just one symptom of that.


You forgot the 3rd; slap a title on and breed for commodity.....


----------



## lhczth

From the GSD standard as translated from the official SV/WUSV standard.



> *Character*
> The German Shepherd Dog must be well-balanced (with strong nerves) in terms of character, self-assured, absolutely natural and (except for a stimulated situation) good-natured as well as attentive and willing to please. He must possess instinctive behaviour, resilience and self-assurance in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, protection, service and herding dog.


Service as in serving man. SchH was developed to test our dogs' to make sure they had and maintained the nerves, drives and temperament for the work of serving man. SAR, LE, detection, Military, guide dogs/service dogs, pets, protection, etc are services to man. IPO as sport, points and winning are only a service to man's ego.


----------



## Chris Wild

WesS said:


> Thats not what other posters have been saying. They are not attacking sport or titles. They are clearly more concerned with rule changes in the sports that don't emphasise strong nerve. They are trying to keep more realistic dimensions and tests to get the 'right dogs'. At least thats what I have been reading.


Thank you Wes for chiming in. Yes, that is essentially what people have been trying to say. I was beginning to wonder if we really were so deficient in our communication that it was impossible to understand. But apparently it is understandable if people want to understand it.

For me, this thread had really done an excellent job of highlighting the widening gulf between people who's focus is on sport and people who's focus is on the breed. Folks will pay hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to attend a seminar or take an online course or buy a bunch of videos to learn the newest gimmicks and tricks for maximizing points on a trial field, but when people like Anne and Cliff who have been involved in GSDs and SchH for longer than most people posting on this thread have been alive are willing to share their knowledge and experience about the breed and the changes in SchH FOR FREE, and in a topic about breeding in the breeding section no less, they are ignored, told they don't know what they are talking about and treated with total disrespect.  It doesn't bode well for the GSD if so many fanciers, including those aspiring to be breeders, are so willing to dismiss the history of the breed and refuse to listen to the experience of others.


----------



## martemchik

lhczth said:


> Service as in serving man. SchH was developed to test our dogs' to make sure they had and maintained the nerves, drives and temperament for the work of serving man. SAR, LE, detection, Military, guide dogs/service dogs, pets, protection, etc are services to man. *IPO as sport, points and winning are only a service to man's ego.*


Your opinion. Ego is just as easily served when breeders on here post the accomplishments of some of the dogs they have bred. There wouldn't be any other reason to list the "real working dogs" from a program other than to boost your own ego...especially when someone else does all the training. I know one in particular loves to talk about how 20 years ago the dogs were being placed in working venues...that's ego...not information. Others are also constantly posting about the accomplishments of the dogs they have bred, and even accomplishments of dogs that are 2 to 3 generations away from THEIR breeding, that's all ego as well.

I guess serving a man by allowing someone to enjoy a hobby, learn about their dog, and just simply spend time with other like minded people doesn't count for you. It's all ego right?

Guess the bottom line is that titling dogs is completely useless since IPO is completely useless. I'll make sure to link this thread the next time somebody comes on this forum and wants to breed their dog and the "IS YOUR DOG TITLED ARMY" comes out in full force.


----------



## martemchik

Chris Wild said:


> Thank you Wes for chiming in. Yes, that is essentially what people have been trying to say. I was beginning to wonder if we really were so deficient in our communication that it was impossible to understand. But apparently it is understandable if people want to understand it.
> 
> For me, this thread had really done an excellent job of highlighting the widening gulf between people who's focus is on sport and people who's focus is on the breed. Folks will pay hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to attend a seminar or take an online course or buy a bunch of videos to learn the newest gimmicks and tricks for maximizing points on a trial field, but when people like Anne and Cliff who have been involved in GSDs and SchH for longer than most people posting on this thread have been alive are willing to share their knowledge and experience about the breed and the changes in SchH FOR FREE, and in a topic about breeding in the breeding section no less, they are ignored, told they don't know what they are talking about and treated with total disrespect.  It doesn't bode well for the GSD if so many fanciers, including those aspiring to be breeders, are so willing to dismiss the history of the breed and refuse to listen to the experience of others.


Again the only thing most people on this forum resort to when they run out of logic...lets attack someone based on their age and experience. If I made any kind of comment like that towards an older person, I'd probably get banned.

Disagreeing with someone isn't disrespect. Maybe if more people realized that, there wouldn't be this issue. Also, just because there is a conversation/debate happening and "two different sides" doesn't mean people aren't learning. Opinions are shared, people read them, people process them, people learn from them. The only type of "disrespect" I've seen so far on this thread has been "You don't know what you're talking about" and the age/experience thing coming back up again. I don't have to AGREE to LEARN, and people shouldn't expect acceptance as a sign of learning. We should be pushing for people to develop their own opinions based on what they read and do...not just blindly follow opinions of people that they've never met or have any idea how good of dog trainers they really are. The idea that I'm going to change my way of training/thinking because some random person on the internet said something...won't ever happen, and that's a good thing.

There really isn't much "explaining" going on. There is a ton of using buzz words and extremely subjective terms without any way for the one person to know EXACTLY what the other person is talking about. This is basically due to the fact that dog training, cannot be explained over text. It has to be seen, it has to be reflected on in real time. Like Anne said, "you have to be there." Telling me a different drive used to be tested, doesn't mean anything to me when I look on video and see a performance that's no where near what I will see today. And BTW...I see plenty of performances like that today out of very good dogs. Sure, not world level by today's standard, but you definitely see plenty of "lack of training" performances on lower level fields and can see that the dog has a lot to offer.

There is just broad over-generalization that "younger people" are just looking at scores and sport when they breed dogs. For some reason...that type of disrespect is allowed on this forum, but when "older people" aren't agreed with...people start crying wolf about disrespect. This is a highly theoretical discussion, and because no one can bring an actual breeding program into the discussion without someone's feelings getting hurt and more than likely a breaking of the rules in some way, it will stay that way. I've said it on this thread already...each breeder needs to figure out their own level of what they will breed and what they won't. Just because a breeder doesn't produce the type of dog I would...doesn't mean it's a bad dog or that it's "ruining" the breed. The breed is way too big to be ruined or fixed by one breeder. Maybe that's the thing some "older people" haven't accepted.


----------



## Jack's Dad

What ever happened to "thanks" for sharing your 20, 30 or more years experience. 
I can't believe that folks with a few years in sport seem to know everything about everything.
I enjoy these threads because I learn from those that have far more time with GSDs than me.

Jeremy, I admire your efforts to find something more meaningful than just points or scores. Don't give up.


----------



## LaRen616

Jack's Dad said:


> What ever happened to "thanks" for sharing your 20, 30 or more years experience.
> I can't believe that folks with a few years in sport seem to know everything about everything.
> I enjoy these threads because I learn from those that have far more time with GSDs than me.
> 
> Jeremy, I admire your efforts to find something more meaningful than just points or scores. Don't give up.


:thumbup:


----------



## lhczth

Breeding strictly for sport, points and winning and basing our breeding decisions on the same only serves the ego. Sorry, but it does. I love SchH. I love training dogs. I am moving to another state for gosh sakes, leaving all I have known for 43 years, just so I have better access to training in SchH/IPO. I also, though, know its purpose and, now, its limitations as a breeding tool and that is what the topic is about. What do we do to test our breeding stock?


----------



## shepherdmom

Chris Wild said:


> But then he's probably just another old, white haired fuddy duddy that doesn't know what he's talking about any more.....


We have an instructor who stands up at the beginning of the year and tells the students history is about so much more than old dead white guys. 

It is so true. We have to understand the stories and the past so we can go forward. I really appreciate this thread I am learning a lot. 

Back to lurk mode. :lurking: Sorry for the interruption.


----------



## Lilie

Jack's Dad said:


> What ever happened to "thanks" for sharing your 20, 30 or more years experience.
> I can't believe that folks with a few years in sport seem to know everything about everything.
> I enjoy these threads because I learn from those that have far more time with GSDs than me.
> 
> Jeremy, I admire your efforts to find something more meaningful than just points or scores. Don't give up.


I'd like to say thank you to them! This has been an extremely educational thread! Kudos!!!!!!


----------



## Steve Strom

mycobraracr said:


> Breeders, since no dog is perfect, how do you decide what is a disqaulifying trait? Something can be fixed with the proper pairing? Or something you are just going to let slide?
> 
> Does this question make sense?


So as a breeder, what would anyone let slide? Any specifics that are less valued? Is there something fixable with the right pairing?


----------



## martemchik

lhczth said:


> I also, though, know its purpose and, now, its limitations as a breeding tool and that is what the topic is about. What do we do to test our breeding stock?


I guess all along I was right there with Chris...IPO/Schutzhund shows me enough to know that I've never been surprised by my dog's reaction in any other venue or even out in the real world. My initial thoughts when I read the question, were about "real world" tests and not really other sport venues. I learned (with help from this forum) that all three phases of IPO really do encompass a lot of what you need to know, and the other venues, while adding/subtracting something, don't necessarily provide you with more information.

Most important thing for me in a dog will always be nerve strength. No matter how much you breed, the last thing you ever want is to get a dog back. And really...you'll probably only get one back if it has nerve issues or is aggressive towards people or other animals for no reason. So to me...Schutzhund/IPO is a fine test of what is needed in that regard. Most puppies go to pet homes, and they need to be stable. High drive? A pet home can handle that if they put in the time as long as the dog doesn't have nerve issues on top of it. Do the other venues provide information about how a dog will be in the house? Not really. And until someone provides a blue print (maybe something closer to KPNV) where if the dog can do all those things it will be a sure fire working dog...every "reputable" breeder is just out there doing what they believe to be right.

I guess "surprise" tests would always be fun. See how your dog reacts to a bite suit without any training...or how does your dog react to a different stick. But even in the other venues...everyone trains for those things. In real world...the dogs are trained and not just thrown into the line of fire. A lot of the things we use dogs for, while using their natural abilities, are still trained and taught. What would it show you if you were to bring a family pet out for a bite work session at the age of three and it didn't bite a sleeve? Nothing except the dog has no idea what is expected of it...

I'd love to hear a story about a dog that takes to a track without any food on it and is able to follow it to the end the first time it ever "goes tracking"...


----------



## Vandal

I'm trying to figure out where this became old vs young. I'm constantly on the prowl for young guys....to do helper work I mean. lol. 

It's simply a case of understanding that the so called "advancements" in training could actually have a negative impact some years down the line and yes, it has already.

As someone who watched and worked show line dogs over the years and was a witness to the shenanigans that went on...and continue to go on....I can testify to the fact that messing around with something that actually worked, is not such a good idea. The percentage of the dogs from those lines who could actually do SchH and be used in other areas, was much higher some years back. I saw them, I worked them and I used them for breeding, before it all seemed to collapse. 

That's just an example, not interested in going back and forth with yet another person who takes those remarks personally. When you see it happen once, you can see it happening again, maybe a bit more clearly than people who are new to it. Sorry, that's just the facts, doesn't have anything to do with how old you are Max, you have not been training dogs that long. 

People want to use old videos to make a point without understanding what was going on at the time. It was a completely different situation, especially the temperament of the dogs and how they viewed the helper. The sleeve was not the focus. The training didn't hide what we were trying to see in the dogs. It's that simple. I think there are very good trainers out there now. Some of the dogs look very nice. I have no idea what she might really be like because I can't work her and so many dogs look like she does nowadays..... because so many people are using this one method. 
I've seen people trying to train otherwise very good dogs using this method and failing miserably. The training was not for THAT dog and people throw the dog away as a result. It's hard to convince people that there is another way to do it that can bring very similar results. Some of those discarded dogs are dogs the are valuable to the breed. 
It's not an insult about the ability of the trainer, it's about not being as capable of accessing the dogs. They are generally not worked in the drives they used to be worked in protection. Those drives, especially the fight drive, are important to the breed. 

Obedience was more about willingness and achieved through a different method of training. Not so much thru the use of prey/food drive. There were dogs who were simply mules as far as that goes and other lines who were very compliant. Both had a place in the breed to add certain characteristics, (hardness in the more "stubborn" type dogs), and bring a balance.

I see more dogs who are of one type now. THAT is the problem and people are breeding dogs like this for just the one venue. I can't explain it better than that. We had the four distinct lines to use . Now the show dogs are far less of an option than they used to be. Dogs who stand on their heads for a ball were ALWAYS in the breed but there are more of those now, leaving less options for breeders. These dogs are much more willing to "take on the sleeve" vs taking on the man. There is an excitability factor I see much more often now with people calling it " drive leaking". When you keep breeding those kinds of dogs together, pretty soon the nerves are shot and you start to see the issues other lines have been seeing for quite some time. 
If you want to take that personal, there is nothing I can do about that.


----------



## WesS

Chris Wild said:


> Thank you Wes for chiming in. Yes, that is essentially what people have been trying to say. I was beginning to wonder if we really were so deficient in our communication that it was impossible to understand. But apparently it is understandable if people want to understand it.
> 
> For me, this thread had really done an excellent job of highlighting the widening gulf between people who's focus is on sport and people who's focus is on the breed. Folks will pay hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to attend a seminar or take an online course or buy a bunch of videos to learn the newest gimmicks and tricks for maximizing points on a trial field, but when people like Anne and Cliff who have been involved in GSDs and SchH for longer than most people posting on this thread have been alive are willing to share their knowledge and experience about the breed and the changes in SchH FOR FREE, and in a topic about breeding in the breeding section no less, they are ignored, told they don't know what they are talking about and treated with total disrespect.  It doesn't bode well for the GSD if so many fanciers, including those aspiring to be breeders, are so willing to dismiss the history of the breed and refuse to listen to the experience of others.


Im listening, absorbing and reading. Thanks for your time. Always remember one thing. There are always more readers than posters  I also believe in the minimum of 10 000 hours rule. It takes 6-10 years to get 'good' at anything in life. Well, that and an open mind.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

I enjoy Cliff's posts and some others on here I might not always agree but I do learn from many of his postings. 

Clubs are full of people that have been in "it" for 30 years, breeding competing whatever. If you dont stay current you get left behind. There are a number of people that were competing 20-30 years ago that are successful today who's seminar I would pay money to attend.
Why? Because I can see their dogs and their training and know that individual has a lot to teach me.

Just being around for 30 years doesnt mean jack to me..sorry.

If we want to talk about real work, what is LE looking for? Good environmental, decent biting, strong hunt, high object drive, social. 
Reason that Mals and Malx are so popular? Price point is better especially for a mix. A GSD of comparable quality costs more and is less likely to interest a broker.
Also, the Mals and xMals tend to have those specific traits in a very concentrated form. Just generally more intensity in their work. 
Many LE organizations want dogs that are what many on here would call a prey monster not the rin tin tin people like to believe they are. Another reason why the Mals tend to win out.

Max said it best, jack of all trades master of none. SO why pay more for that dog and take a chance when I can buy the dog more likely to succeed in my venue.

I personally dont think a good LE dog should be able to do guide work. The traits required for both venues are almost diametrically opposed. 
A good sport breeding program is much more likely to produce the right type of dog for LE. 

Seems like when you breed for the golden middle you end up no where. Look at successful kennels, they all produce a certain type of dog. Discernably different and specializing in specific traits.

As far as I am concerned SLs are no longer working dogs, they were bred for looks and they became what they were bred to be. Show dogs.


----------



## martemchik

Anne...there's clearly an expectation on this forum...and truthfully, in the GSD/IPO world, to just lay down and accept what is being told to you. Can't question, can't ask, can't contradict. It is what it is. Learning isn't progressive, it's just copy whatever the person before you did. Seems like its the only aspect of our lives where progress and innovation is frowned upon. People get mad the moment you go to a different trainer/helper. Can't accept that a method can work over another method. Do the methods you speak of work for some dogs? Sure. I have learned those methods as well, and most don't believe that it is something someone can pick up in 2-3 years in the sport, but you can trust that I know how to pressure a dog, it's by choice that I don't, I vary what I do based on the dog in front of me. The dogs I work don't need it, and I expect them to bring it.

You should again remember...I learn from your generation, I train with people that have just as much experience with GSD as you do. I didn't come up with the training style you all seem to frown upon. Funny how the ones I work with have no issues with using different training styles if they work...no matter how "gimmicky" it looks. If it works, it works for them.

People on this forum post about how they barely passed a trial, but then give the excuse of "it's because my dog has fight" and it gets praised even though people have no idea what they're even talking about. A dog goes out and gets V scores across the board, and it's called a show, gimmicky training, and the dog gets dismissed for having anything "real." Plenty of strong, powerful dogs can be biddable and obedient. It's unfortunate that people believe the only way for a dog to show power is to not listen to the handler, or be beat into heeling properly instead of using food or a ball.

Dogs that "need" the methods you speak of, aren't getting discarded at the rate you speak of. They're out there. You want to talk doomsday and scare the people of the forum, that's up to you. I look at the fact that I can find the type of dog I want, the majority of GSD owners can find the type of dog they want, and contrary to what the group has been preaching, I've yet to see a police department that can't find a GSD that suits their needs.


----------



## Nigel

I'm enjoying reading this thread too and I understand the points Anne, Cliff, Chris and others are making. One of the better threads to come along in a while.


----------



## Liesje

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Max said it best, jack of all trades master of none.


The problem with this quote is that people seem to throw it out to justify their own criteria for titling and breeding when most of the time it looks to me like they're only doing one or two things with their dogs. To me this means the dog actually IS training/participating/titling in all (ok not ALL but several) trades. I like this quote and I like to train and title my dogs in (counting...) ten things. My dogs are nothing super special, rare, or extraordinary. They are GSD from various lines that have the drive and energy to train and to travel and compete every single month. I've yet to find a venue that my dogs didn't enjoy and I couldn't spend a small fortune pursuing http://www.germanshepherds.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## GatorDog

Jack's Dad said:


> What ever happened to "thanks" for sharing your 20, 30 or more years experience.
> I can't believe that folks with a few years in sport seem to know everything about everything.
> I enjoy these threads because I learn from those that have far more time with GSDs than me.
> 
> Jeremy, I admire your efforts to find something more meaningful than just points or scores. Don't give up.


I never said that I know everything. If you can find where I may have said something of the sort, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I am absolutely allowed to have a different opinion, regardless of who anyone is. 

And just because you've been doing something for x amount of years doesn't make you the authority.


----------



## GatorDog

I've worked with quite a few people who've been doing dog sport for decades, and I've thanked them plenty. The reason I've never had any sort of conflict in this type of conversation before reading threads on this online forum is because those people in real life have been not only willing to adapt their training techniques to train our dogs in the easiest, most effective and humane ways possible, but they still apply their other knowledge of previous methods without being completely condescending and arrogant about it, based on length of time involved in the sport. They do it because these methods are working for our dogs. It's a better picture when the dogs are happy and in control and we don't need to take it to the measures that were used in previous training. It's balanced, with motivation and corrections. They can recognize that without calling it "gimmicky". They can recognize good training and a good dog without needing to factor in their ego of how many years they've been doing it more than me. Those are the people I have no problem learning from and thanking for their experience. Someone who tells me I'm too ignorant or too new to understand? Yeah, no thanks. I'll kee my crappy sport dog to myself then.


----------



## Chris Wild

The problem with training "progressing" in some areas is that the dogs progress along with it, and often in the wrong direction.

Let's ignore protection for a moment... it always gets the most press, but also the most disagreement... and look at the other phases. This is a 3 phase sport after all and all of them are designed to test different aspects of the dog.

Tracking
Tracking used to be about a dog following a track. For at least the decades anyone can remember, it has always been somewhat more stylized and less free than forms of real world tracking such as SAR and LE. But it was still tracking. The dog was allowed to use a range of his natural abilities to follow the track and find the articles so long as he stayed more or less on the track and kept working. Now, getting so much as a whisker off the track may cause a deduction it seems.

This change in what is required to get full points has "evolved" along with a change in the way tracking is trained these days. I'm not sure which came first... the change in training or the change in judging... it's the same chicken vs egg situation that exists in conformation. But regardless of what prompted it, the training has changed. And the change in training has brought with it a change in the drives, talents and mental state of the dog doing the tracking. For most these days, especially those focused on points, tracking has become another obedience phase. Sometimes taught through force, sometimes through motivation, sometimes through a mix of the two, but the phrase "obedient to the track" is thrown around a lot and it really is a good description. Dogs are taught to find footsteps... one after the other, hundreds on end... rather than to follow the track. And their brains are working in an obedience frame of mind, rather than a tracking one.

I've heard more than one successful competitor share their method for teaching the dog how to work out a problem like a corner... and every method I've heard has distilled it to an obedience exercise where the handler teaches the dog a specific set of behaviors to find the corner. What ever happened to leaving the dog alone, letting the one with the nose use it and find the track again, and then tell him he's a good boy when he does? What is fundamentally the most natural of all of the behaviors we ask any dog to perform in IPO has been bastardized into one of the most unnatural of all.

Some people watching "old vs new" tracking would no doubt consider today's style to be an improvement. After all it looks more precise and disciplined. The dog is using his nose either way, so what's the difference? This new style looks better, so it must BE better. The points would certainly reflect that as a dog who approaches tracking as a tracking dog rather than as an obedience dog is going to be behind in the placings.

But do people stop and think about what the new style, and the training methods it entails, mean about the drives and mental state that the dog is utilizing? We already have one obedience phase. It's called obedience. Tracking is supposed to be about tracking. It is supposed to be testing the dog's ability to follow a track and deal with problems found along the track in a natural manner not a specific set of handler taught steps. It also tests the dogs ability to switch back and forth between a tracking mindset (tracking) and an obedience mindset (indicate the articles). Something that is definitely lost if the whole thing is just obedience to the dog.

When tracking is turned into something that isn't tracking, it's value as a test for the traits needed for real tracking is lost. This is just one area where the judging and training is fundamentally changing the traits the dog utilizes to be successful. That in turn is changing the traits that are being rewarded and bred for in the dogs, and not for the better in many cases when looking at the breed and it's usefulness beyond sport.


----------



## WesS

GatorDog said:


> I never said that I know everything. If you can find where I may have said something of the sort, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I am absolutely allowed to have a different opinion, regardless of who anyone is.
> 
> And just because you've been doing something for x amount of years doesn't make you the authority.



.......... (** I had to remove the reference to the part of the quote that was deleted. Admin)....But real experience really does have a time factor involved. And I don't think anybody will ever really know everything. 

The fact is you can be misdirected for 11 years, or achieve in 11 years. But the fact is putting in the time is non-negotiable sometimes for a more weighted opinion. A person who has never had even so much as a pet dog and suddenly jumps into IPO and competition as his life, be all end all. Simply is taking part on personal Ego. The dogs don't care for those points. When everything about somebody is just about that score card I think they lose what its all about. They want to 'prove' something fast. They want to make a name for themselves. And the simplest and most direct way to do that is show off in an organised, standardised event/sport. But you find when they quench that desire to 'show what they got'... People invariably start thinking the way the more seasoned guys are thinking. A lot has to do with maturity rather than knowledge.

I have not really read any offensive posts from the 'older guys' towards the youth on this thread. Its just a cautionary tale of beware. A specific sport is not the be all end all. Thats all they are saying.


----------



## Chris Wild

And then there is obedience....
Contrary to what a lot of people think, food and toys are nothing new. They've been used for a long time. But in a different manner than they often are used today. They used to be used as a means to enhance the relationship with the handler... along with hefty doses of genuine, heartfelt praise. Now, they are very often used in a manner in which they become the be all and end all to the dog. The dog is working FOR the food/toy, not for the handler. And that very different underlying motivation brings with it some very fundamental changes in the drives, mental state and character of the dogs.

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree and say that isn't true... his/her dog and every dog he knows is working for the handler, not just for the food/toy. If that is the case, why do we have so many, er... we'll call them "training aids" since people don't like the word gimmicks? Ball launchers, ball drop vests, toy pouches designed to look like competitor numbers? Why the panic at trials if a judge says "it's 80 degrees out, no you don't need to be wearing your Gappay training jacket on the field"? Why whole sections of training programs designed around having to wean the dog off the food/toy, or alternatively find a way to convince the dog that it is always there and available, even in trial? If the dog were truly working for the handler, not the stuff, none of that would be needed. Heeling wouldn't have morphed into this ridiculous exercise of dogs prancing along like zombies with their nose stuck up as far into their handler's armpit as it can go, looking for that reward that is always stashed in there.

And once again, the training/judging is changing the temperament of the dogs in fundamental ways. Prey drive, high energy and low excitability thresholds reign supreme and things like true biddability, or "genetic obedience" as it is often called, and genuine work ethic and common sense that used to be hallmarks of the breed aren't needed for high scores, so they fall by the wayside. And environmental awareness and independent thinking, things that the guide dog people and LE people and SAR people absolutely must have, are the last things anyone wants for IPO these days.


----------



## martemchik

Chris, you definitely make a good point about tracking. But I can also say that even your method, or the older method (as I don’t know what you do now), is still teaching the dog and can be considered obedience. Were you laying food in footsteps? Were you correcting for going off track? The dogs still had to learn what it was the handler wanted from them. If you want to discuss "the drive the dog is supposed to work in." If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that two people can see a dog work and have a two different opinions of the drive that dog is working in. The method you describe, just has a way of doing that quicker and more effectively, depending on the dog. Is there a track that a dog trained with the old way can do that a dog tracked with the new way can’t? I doubt it. So clearly it’s just two different methods that achieve the same result. Which one is better? Eye of the beholder. I also know of very few people that use the new method you describe effectively, it’s still not as widely accepted as some of the other gimmicky training that has been discussed. Just saw a pretty huge facebook thread on that same issue a few weeks ago that got pretty heated.

I also think that as long as the handler is objective…they can easily see which dog is better at tracking than another even when training with the new way. Sure, the method is what it is. But it can be used at varying levels depending on the natural ability the dog shows. This is the same with any method you use to train anything to any dog. One dog learns to sit within 5 repetitions, another one takes 100. You note it. One dog learns to take turns after 2 repetitions, another one takes 20. You take note of that. The methods used don’t mean much in the process of evaluating a dog. Most people that care enough about breeding and working dogs…can see through training to the real dog.

In regards to tracking itself though…yes, you can say it turns into obedience, but I will say that the dog is still using natural ability. The dog just understands what is expected better and yes, depending on the dog, it will be more successful. There is no training the higher ability some dogs have tracking over others. No matter the method, you can see that phase fall apart more than any other if the dog isn’t a natural tracker. You see plenty of dogs at high levels that have tracking scores all over the board from one trial to another, no amount of expert training fixes that.

Your post about obedience, is too ridden with huge over generalizations that you’ve seen out of a few people and are then spreading onto the rest of the population. Sorry, you can only speak for a single person when it comes to “what they want for IPO these days.”

And to those people making the side comments, agreeing with a certain side of the debate over the other...just get out there and do it. Maybe then you'll have something to contribute and not just a thumbs up or a "this person makes a better point." Truthfully...none of you have any idea who makes the better point until you get out there and see it for yourself. Understand the value of a title, or just training for one, and then you can decide who is making the better point. It really doesn't take much time...but if all you want to do is base your opinion on IPO/titling based on the words of a few experienced people, you should really go meet more in real life and see what their opinions are as well.


----------



## Chris Wild

No, I'm speaking for the points and the judges and the people who train with that goal in mind. Far from one single person.

Look at heeling. What is it supposed to be? A dog walking naturally along next to his handler, attentive to *the handler*. 

It wasn't long ago that if a dog glanced around, especially when approaching a group or if something odd happened off to the side, or watched the judge when the handler was reporting in, was ok. It was expected. Nothing was seen as "wrong" with a dog who was aware of his surroundings and keeping track of things going on around him so long as he maintained proper position and his remained attentive to the handler. 

Now, all of that would be considered "wrong" and lose points. How dare the dog break his laserbeam stare no matter what happens. In training his handler will correct him. In trial the judge will take a point and comment in the critique that the dog "could have been more attentive to the handler".

If I'm breeding for IPO, I'm going to breed a dog who's prey drive is so overwhelming that he can obtain tunnel vision, and maintain it for a good 15 minutes straight, no matter what happens because that sort of dog who can completely tune out the world around him and just stare at the place he thinks the toy will be presented is one that is easier trained for maximum points in today's IPO. Whereas if I'm breeding for a utilitarian working dog, I'm going go prefer the dog who can split his focus to a certain extent, able to stay with his handler and focused on his handler and the task at hand but not at the exclusion of awareness of the world around him. There is more to the difference in those dogs than the training methods. There is very often a difference in the dogs themselves. The GSD shouldn't be a breed that will chase a ball off a cliff, but more and more would do just that.

Or let's switch to another obedience exercise, the long down. I'm rather concerned about stories I've heard from multiple sources that some judges, particularly at the larger events in Europe, are starting to reserve full points on the long down for dogs that not only remain in position without so much as a twitch the whole time, but who also keep their attention focused entirely on the blind that the handler is in for the entire exercise. If the dog looks around, even if he never moves an inch, he may lose half a point or so. They "why" of this is obvious. The rules don't say anything about the dog having to stare at the handler the whole time, but there has to be a winner and the training has gotten so specialized and so homogenous that it is becoming harder and harder to find a way to differentiate the points. This is one way of doing that.

Now think for a minute what that says about the dog. For a dog to remain staring at a blind where nothing is happening, when there is a lot happening around him, requires the dog to be maintaining some level of drive during the long down. You'll probably say it's just training. I say not so because there is a difference in the brain between a dog who will do that and one who will relax and take in things around him.

This worries me because it follows the trend of rewarding more drive, more intensity, more energy, and failing to reward other important temperament aspects. The breeder and GSD fancier in me wants to see a dog that settles calmly on the long down, not one that remains buzzing with energy, ready to spring. There are several other exercises in obedience that are for testing drive and energy and explosiveness. The long down is about testing the dog's ability to then turn off again and relax and be calm, even though he was just in drive working the field or will soon have to go into drive to work the field, and while there are interesting things going on around him. The down in motion is the place for a dog to exhibit a focused, intense sphinx down ready to explode. The long down shouldn't look the same because it should be testing and showcasing something different about the dog himself. 

A dog's ability to know when to turn OFF and remain calm, cool and collected amidst stimulation and distraction is every bit as important in every venue from guide to SAR to police to a pet as is his ability to turn on when needed. But for the sake of points things may be tipping toward rewarding the dog who doesn't turn off, and at best can just hit his pause button for a while.


----------



## LaRen616

martemchik said:


> And to those people making the side comments, agreeing with a certain side of the debate over the other...just get out there and do it. Maybe then you'll have something to contribute and not just a thumbs up or a "this person makes a better point." Truthfully...none of you have any idea who makes the better point until you get out there and see it for yourself. Understand the value of a title, or just training for one, and then you can decide who is making the better point. It really doesn't take much time...but if all you want to do is base your opinion on IPO/titling based on the words of a few experienced people, you should really go meet more in real life and see what their opinions are as well.


Actually, my thumbs up was for these 2 sentences.



Jack's Dad said:


> *What ever happened to "thanks" for sharing your 20, 30 or more years experience. *
> I can't believe that folks with a few years in sport seem to know everything about everything.
> *I enjoy these threads because I learn from those that have far more time with GSDs than me.*
> 
> Jeremy, I admire your efforts to find something more meaningful than just points or scores. Don't give up.


 
Cliff has helped me in the past and has answered my questions. I appreciate him and the time he spends trying to help educate people.

I also enjoy these threads because I too learn from them. 

I never said anyone had a better point, I just gave a thumbs up to a good post, we are allowed to do that.


----------



## mycobraracr

Chris Wild said:


> No, I'm speaking for the points and the judges and the people who train with that goal in mind. Far from one single person.
> 
> Look at heeling. What is it supposed to be? A dog walking naturally along next to his handler, attentive to *the handler*.
> 
> It wasn't long ago that if a dog glanced around, especially when approaching a group or if something odd happened off to the side, or watched the judge when the handler was reporting in, was ok. It was expected. Nothing was seen as "wrong" with a dog who was aware of his surroundings and keeping track of things going on around him so long as he maintained proper position and his remained attentive to the handler.
> 
> Now, all of that would be considered "wrong" and lose points. How dare the dog break his laserbeam stare no matter what happens. In training his handler will correct him. In trial the judge will take a point and comment in the critique that the dog "could have been more attentive to the handler".
> 
> If I'm breeding for IPO, I'm going to breed a dog who's prey drive is so overwhelming that he can obtain tunnel vision, and maintain it for a good 15 minutes straight, no matter what happens because that sort of dog who can completely tune out the world around him and just stare at the place he thinks the toy will be presented is one that is easier trained for maximum points in today's IPO. Whereas if I'm breeding for a utilitarian working dog, I'm going go prefer the dog who can split his focus to a certain extent, able to stay with his handler and focused on his handler and the task at hand but not at the exclusion of awareness of the world around him. There is more to the difference in those dogs than the training methods. There is very often a difference in the dogs themselves. The GSD shouldn't be a breed that will chase a ball off a cliff, but more and more would do just that.
> 
> Or let's switch to another obedience exercise, the long down. I'm rather concerned about stories I've heard from multiple sources that some judges, particularly at the larger events in Europe, are starting to reserve full points on the long down for dogs that not only remain in position without so much as a twitch the whole time, but who also keep their attention focused entirely on the blind that the handler is in for the entire exercise. If the dog looks around, even if he never moves an inch, he may lose half a point or so. They "why" of this is obvious. The rules don't say anything about the dog having to stare at the handler the whole time, but there has to be a winner and the training has gotten so specialized and so homogenous that it is becoming harder and harder to find a way to differentiate the points. This is one way of doing that.
> 
> Now think for a minute what that says about the dog. For a dog to remain staring at a blind where nothing is happening, when there is a lot happening around him, requires the dog to be maintaining some level of drive during the long down. You'll probably say it's just training. I say not so because there is a difference in the brain between a dog who will do that and one who will relax and take in things around him.
> 
> This worries me because it follows the trend of rewarding more drive, more intensity, more energy, and failing to reward other important temperament aspects. The breeder and GSD fancier in me wants to see a dog that settles calmly on the long down, not one that remains buzzing with energy, ready to spring. There are several other exercises in obedience that are for testing drive and energy and explosiveness. The long down is about testing the dog's ability to then turn off again and relax and be calm, even though he was just in drive working the field or will soon have to go into drive to work the field, and while there are interesting things going on around him. The down in motion is the place for a dog to exhibit a focused, intense sphinx down ready to explode. The long down shouldn't look the same because it should be testing and showcasing something different about the dog himself.
> 
> A dog's ability to know when to turn OFF and remain calm, cool and collected amidst stimulation and distraction is every bit as important in every venue from guide to SAR to police to a pet as is his ability to turn on when needed. But for the sake of points things may be tipping toward rewarding the dog who doesn't turn off, and at best can just hit his pause button for a while.




I haven't had a chance to read the four pages I've missed. 

In regards to what Chris, these are also the same dogs that are so focused on the handler that they can no longer think for themselves or work independent of the handler.


----------



## Chris Wild

They are also the dogs who burn themselves out quickly. The ones who can't handle a long search because rather than pace themselves they "blow their wad" in the first few minutes. The ones who can't settle calmly under the table while their disabled person has lunch before going back to work. The ones who are so ramped up at traffic going by while riding in the back of the police cruiser that they don't have any energy left when they're called upon.

The GSD is a breed that is supposed to be intuitive and able to read a situation and adjust it's behavior accordingly. This is one of the forgotten, or never known about, aspects of protection. Is the dog able to increase and decrease his aggression in direct response to what the helper is doing and the level of threat presented. Some dogs naturally do this. They don't bite when a bark will do, and they let go easily when the helper gives up. It comes from very much the same place inside the dog as does good herding behavior. And it is largely innate and as Anne has been saying, the training used to be to allow the dogs to show that and not to try to put into a dog a facsimile of something that isn't really there. More dogs used to be able to do it. Now more often dogs are taught in training to pretend to be doing it. There is a difference.

The same goes for the obedience exercises. A dog going for a walk with his handler, which is essentially what heeling is, and certainly a dog in a down stay, needn't be showing the same level of drive and energy as he does during a recall or retrieve or send away. It is a useless waste of energy. And as I said, it is getting to the point of rewarding dogs who have lost the ability to read a situation, pace themselves and adjust their behavior accordingly in favor of dogs who are always on at 5000rpm all the time.


----------



## martemchik

Why not have a dog that can run at 5000 rpm for the whole time than one that can just get to 5000 rpm at certain times? If a dog can be at that high of drive, the whole time, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If a dog can do the long down, showing just as much intensity, and yet still do a full speed send out and a recall...I'm not sure I see the issue. And yeah...protection...a dog that can't stay with it's handler because it's "assessing the situation" and just wants to run at the helper on a back transport...I believe this has often been referred to as "power" in this thread. Maybe a dog that would really assess that situation would know that the guy is just walking, no need to be closer to him, unless he turns and wants to attack. But nah...when we can call it power, we forget all about assessing the situation and just call it something that sounds good.

Again...discussing dogs that have issues and trying to tie them into "all sport dogs." Top level sport dogs, don't "blow their wad" in the first few minutes. Top sport dogs can relax, can live in the home, and aren't constantly on the go. But it's easier for this forum to keep perpetrating lies in order to belittle other dogs and breeding practices and make the majority on this forum believing something that isn't true. We've moved away from "judge the individual dog" to...all dogs that do X are like Y, just so that we can be right. The few people on this forum...all breed and train real dogs...the rest of them, "teach their dogs to pretend."

One or two anecdotal stories and we paint the whole group as if it's broken.

BTW...if we want to discuss tracking and the "drives" it takes...how is PSA/SDA/Mondio ring able to test those drives?


----------



## lhczth

*** I did a little editing so if you notice something you wrote is missing, that is why. They were points that didn't need to be included. People are behaving and I would hate to have the thread shut down. Also, if you see something you don't like and report it, PLEASE do us a favor and don't respond to the comment just because ADMIN or one of the Mods can't get to it immediately. 

Thank you,

ADMIN Lisa (who had to lie down to help stop a migraine from progressing.) *


----------



## Steve Strom

> Why not have a dog that can run at 5000 rpm for the whole time than one that can just get to 5000 rpm at certain times? If a dog can be at that high of drive, the whole time, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


I can say this about one of my dogs Max, if they can't idle down, they blow. Wad and all. They become dependent on something as a crutch, show them something slightly different, they can't handle it. Its not exactly what you're picturing as far as high drive, the analogy of the rpm's. The dog you're picturing is idling down at different times, but the attitude stays up.


----------



## lhczth

Max, did you read what Chris wrote? I do not agree with everything she is writing, since I have been training for flashy heeling and OB dogs since the mid 80's, but she makes many many good points in the way things have changed and are being judged? You are taking things far too personally. This is a breeding discussion and we are arguing points. 

Case in point. For awhile dogs that bit hard, but just went along for the ride were favored in the escape and drives. A dog that fought, punched into the helper, torqued the sleeve or maybe countered in (not talking a dog who chewed or whose bite got shallow) were given lessor scores because the dogs should have been calmer. Last trial I attended both the calmness in the grip and the dog's desire to fight were rewarded so that is going back to what it should be at least under SV and USCA judges. The dog is supposed to be actively attempting to stop and control the helper. He isn't supposed to just hang on and accept whatever is being done.


----------



## Chris Wild

martemchik said:


> Why not have a dog that can run at 5000 rpm for the whole time than one that can just get to 5000 rpm at certain times?


<sigh> I give up. I don't know how much more clear I can make it than to say that the GSD is a breed that is supposed to be able to switch back and forth and have enough intelligence to recognize when one or the other is appropriate. It is not supposed to be a dog that is all or nothing. It's not about whether the dog can do it "all the time" or "just certain" times, it's about the dog who can *tell the difference*.


----------



## MadLab

> <sigh> I give up.


Don't give up. 

** Rest removed by ADMIN**


----------



## martemchik

Sorry Lisa...but when I see statements like the one above...there's no conversation to be had..."It's supposed to be this way" according to one person. That has to be law. There's no "learning" to be had. I have to change my thinking and opinion while the other side of the discussion just gets to go on being 100% right.


----------



## Chris Wild

Lisa, I've trained with you for years. Your heeling is gorgeous, but it is also natural. It is flashy, without looking like some stilted, artificial creation where the dog is moving in nothing resembling a a normal pace. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not saying dogs should look like dullards. Some flash is good. The dog should be happy and enthusiastic, but also look like a dog working with it's handler and paying attention to it's handler, not some bizarre cross between a robot and a blithering idiot staring straight up into space. Sorry, but that's what a lot of SchH heeling looks like to me these days.


----------



## Chris Wild

martemchik said:


> ."It's supposed to be this way" according to one person. That has to be law.


Yup, it's supposed to be that way according to the standard and every single historical text about the breed that you would ever care to read. And frankly, most of the general population. It is the intelligence and discernment and ability to know when to react and when not to and how to react and how not to that made this breed legendary. It is hardly one person's opinion.


----------



## lhczth

OK, we agree then on heeling.


----------



## martemchik

Chris Wild said:


> Yup, it's supposed to be that way according to the standard and every single historical text about the breed that you would ever care to read. And frankly, most of the general population. It is the intelligence and discernment and ability to know when to react and when not to and how to react and how not to that made this breed legendary. It is hardly one person's opinion.


Chris...lets talk "real work." Does it matter how it's completed? Does it matter if the dog is always at a heightened state of drive if it can still complete the work efficiently and affectively? Anyways...a dog that is in a down, at a heightened state of drive, and can still control itself and do the down, does prove that the dog has the intelligence and discernment to know when to react and when not to. A dog that can be excited, yet still possess the level head to listen to the handler, but be ready for whatever comes next, shows that same thing. You don't want to believe it does, because that's your opinion, it's what you've been taught, you clearly refuse to look at it a different way. To me, it shows plenty of control.

Anyways...historical texts. We're back to no evolution, no progress, no advancement. That's the dog world in a nut shell for you. Sit there while the world passes you by...and then wonder why all the "real work" venues are going to other breeds.

And just to make a point...I do agree with you that judges shouldn't care how the dog is in a down as long as it's in a down. I think that's getting way overboard. Not allowing a dog to look around/just relax on threat of losing points doesn't make much sense. But if that's what they do, that's what they do. I have yet to see it at a higher level trial though. If the dog stays put, they seem to earn all 10 points no matter where their attention is. I think a lot of people like the attention on them just to make sure the dog doesn't get up and go somewhere while the other routine is going on. More of a training thing to make sure you don't lose the whole exercise than a worry over the half point that a judge isn't even going to take.

But again...if a dog can maintain that level of drive, and it doesn't affect their final exercise at the end of the routine...I don't see any issue with the behavior the dog is exhibiting or that it's a negative aspect of that particular dog's temperament. Some dogs are just that attentive.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> Chris Wild said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, it's supposed to be that way according to the standard and every single historical text about the breed that you would ever care to read. And frankly, most of the general population. It is the intelligence and discernment and ability to know when to react and when not to and how to react and how not to that made this breed legendary. It is hardly one person's opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris...lets talk "real work." Does it matter how it's completed? Does it matter if the dog is always at a heightened state of drive if it can still complete the work efficiently and affectively? Anyways...a dog that is in a down, at a heightened state of drive, and can still control itself and do the down, does prove that the dog has the intelligence and discernment to know when to react and when not to. A dog that can be excited, yet still possess the level head to listen to the handler, but be ready for whatever comes next, shows that same thing. You don't want to believe it does, because that's your opinion, it's what you've been taught, you clearly refuse to look at it a different way. To me, it shows plenty of control.
> 
> Anyways...historical texts. We're back to no evolution, no progress, no advancement. That's the dog world in a nut shell for you. Sit there while the world passes you by...and then wonder why all the "real work" venues are going to other breeds.
> 
> And just to make a point...I do agree with you that judges shouldn't care how the dog is in a down as long as it's in a down. I think that's getting way overboard. Not allowing a dog to look around/just relax on threat of losing points doesn't make much sense. But if that's what they do, that's what they do. I have yet to see it at a higher level trial though. If the dog stays put, they seem to earn all 10 points no matter where their attention is. I think a lot of people like the attention on them just to make sure the dog doesn't get up and go somewhere while the other routine is going on. More of a training thing to make sure you don't lose the whole exercise than a worry over the half point that a judge isn't even going to take.
> 
> But again...if a dog can maintain that level of drive, and it doesn't affect their final exercise at the end of the routine...I don't see any issue with the behavior the dog is exhibiting or that it's a negative aspect of that particular dog's temperament. Some dogs are just that attentive.
Click to expand...

Are you for real? He just addressed this? Are you reading what he is replying to you?

I get you have an opinion. But now your taking this discussion in circles. Makes for very hard reading. Why ask the exact same questions of him that he just answered?


----------



## lhczth

GSD are losing position in the real world because of a lack of nerves (especially for environmental stressors), aggression/fight for dual purpose dogs, and often a lack of high enough hunt drive (the reason why other breeds are often used). The latter is not tested for, for the most part, in IPO tracking, but this has been a problem for a long time. Anyhow, it has nothing to do with breeders being lost in the past or refusing to move forward. If so those debating with you wouldn't have dogs working in SAR, LE, detection, USAR (dissaster dogs), etc.


----------



## lhczth

WesS, Chris is a she.


----------



## Chris Wild

Max, yes, let's talk real work. You, know, dogs who have to be able to perform 24/7 at any time called upon, not dogs asked to do 15 minutes on a sport field. Please tell me ONE real work scenario where a dog maintaining a high level of arousal when it is not needed and for no reason is valuable? There is none. There is no type of work where this is appropriate. And in fact in most every form of work... and this isn't just dogs, the horse people will say the same... the best partner is one who can turn it on when needed but then also turn it off and "conserve fuel" when appropriate. If the animal can't tell the difference, he will put forth more effort than necessary to achieve his job, and exhaust himself in the process making him unable to perform his job again later if he needs to be called upon. It is his brain and common sense that should tell him when to relax, not reaching exhaustion. 

Nothing can stay "on" all the time. That is a simple matter of physiology. And a brain wired to be "on" all the time is unhealthy and unbalanced, physically and psychologically. That sort of wiring in the brain can lead to neurosis and physical health problems in any species. In humans they call that ADHD and prescribe meds for it...... but now it's something we should value in dogs? Ok. I'll have to disagree there.

Back to the down... yup, both dogs are exhibiting self control. But for different reasons. And for me, the why's behind it are important for what they say about the genetics of the dog. Furthermore, from a safety standpoint, the dog who is barely contained and wound like a spring is far more likely to break position and lose points or cause havoc than the dog who is settled and has to first load into a state of arousal before he'd get to the point of breaking.


----------



## martemchik

WesS said:


> Are you for real? He just addressed this? Are you reading what he is replying to you?
> 
> I get you have an opinion. But now your taking this discussion in circles. Makes for very hard reading. Why ask the exact same questions of him that he just answered?


She addressed a dog that blows its wad. Also claimed most of the dogs in IPO are like that. That's not what I see. Is that the kind of dog you see in IPO? Just wondering what your opinion is on the dogs in IPO is.

I don't see any issue with a dog that can hold its level of drive for an extended period of time. Truthfully...the majority of dogs in IPO today, can't even get to the level of drive necessary to heel with attention, not the other way around. So to claim that all the dogs are like that, and then to say that it's an issue, when the real issue is quite the opposite, is doing a great disservice to all the readers who have never even sniffed a training field in the first place.


----------



## martemchik

Chris Wild said:


> Max, yes, let's talk real work. You, know, dogs who have to be able to perform 24/7 at any time called upon, not dogs asked to do 15 minutes on a sport field. Please tell me ONE real work scenario where a dog maintaining a high level of arousal when it is not needed and for no reason is valuable? There is none. There is no type of work where this is appropriate. And in fact in most every form of work... and this isn't just dogs, the horse people will say the same... the best partner is one who can turn it on when needed but then also turn it off and "conserve fuel" when appropriate. If the animal can't tell the difference, he will put forth more effort than necessary to achieve his job, and exhaust himself in the process making him unable to perform his job again later if he needs to be called upon. It is his brain and common sense that should tell him when to relax, not reaching exhaustion.


 Chris...you're right...there isn't one. But there is also not a single venue where a dog is *expected* to maintain the heightened level of drive for 24/7. A police dog doing an apprehension? How long does that take? A police dog walking next to it's handler? They don't get trained to walk the way IPO dogs heel. A dog searching for drugs/bomb? Different drive, and is actually sustainable for a certain duration, but still, not hours or days. That's my point...it doesn't matter if the dog is in a heightened level of drive as long as it can accomplish the work. Those that peter out...of course that's not a good thing.

Are there dogs out there that yes...naturally are just that psychotic at all times? Absolutely. But that's no where near the average dog out there. Sure, there are probably police dogs out there that can't calm down even when in the car, but that's not the majority of them. That's a few anecdotal ones you've heard, we've all heard them. It doesn't mean ALL the dogs are that way.


----------



## Chris Wild

No where have a I said that the majority of IPO dogs are one way or another. I have spoken of trends I have noticed in training over the years, and the sort of dogs being selected and rewarded based upon those changes in training, and how it is impacting the genetics of dogs. Never said all. But certainly enough to notice there are more of some types, and fewer of others, than there used to be.

You poopooed the history and foundation of the breed and said the GSD should evolve and advance, not let the world pass it by. In the same paragraph you pointed out how the breed that was once the dominant one in almost all forms of work is now often passed up in favor of other breeds in real work venues.

And you don't see the correlation there? You say the breed should change. Most of us are saying it already has. We just seem to differ on whether or not that's a good thing in many respects.


----------



## Chris Wild

martemchik said:


> Chris...you're right...there isn't one. But there is also not a single venue where a dog is *expected* to maintain the heightened level of drive for 24/7. A police dog doing an apprehension? How long does that take? A police dog walking next to it's handler? They don't get trained to walk the way IPO dogs heel. A dog searching for drugs/bomb? Different drive, and is actually sustainable for a certain duration, but still, not hours or days. That's my point...it doesn't matter if the dog is in a heightened level of drive as long as it can accomplish the work. Those that peter out...of course that's not a good thing.


You probably don't realize it, but now you're arguing part of my my point. There is NO value to the ADHD dog in real work because there isn't a venue where that level of drive and energy is required to be sustained for any period of time. Sure, the dog in a higher state of drive than is needed doesn't matter PROVIDED he can still think clearly and be responsive in unfamiliar, distracting situations rather than just familiar ones like trial fields (many can't) and is able to keep going for however long the job takes. Problem is, going into the situation no one will know how long it will take. The dog going 55 on the freeway will still get the job done in sufficient time, and if the trip turns out to be longer than expected he's also going to make it farther down the road on his tank of gas than the guy going 90. He's also a lot less likely to miss his exit.

So what is the point of thinking overdrive it's a good thing for IPO? 

Let me rephrase.... where is thinking this is a good thing for IPO a good thing for the breed as a whole or for other working venues or for something that used to be, and some try to use as such, a test of breed worthiness?

Breeders need to very, very carefully consider a trait that has value only on a trial field, and no where else. Especially when it often brings with it a loss of other traits that are valuable in the real world.


----------



## ugavet2012

mycobraracr said:


> I'm talking from my real life experiences. I've been the decoy in a dark room of a building where a dog knew I was there but wouldn't go past the edge of the light. I've been the decoy in a building with slick floors and automatic doors that the dog wouldn't go through. I've been the decoy behind a tarp that the dog wouldn't engage. I've seen dogs do fine with a cap gun, but bring out anything bigger and watch them shut down. These same dogs on an open field look great. One in particular that I'm thinking of is one of my favorite dogs to work. Puts on a great show handles the field pressure like a champ. Comes in hard, fast, with a gorgeous launch. Will bite whatever is presented without hesitation. He's socially stable in public and public events. Get him off a field into some different situations and you would think it was a different dog.


Funny thing is, I have a not so great nerve GSD who lacks confidence who will bite in those scenarios (she has done them, and without practice). She just has a lot of stupid drive for biting. Probably not so much what people should be breeding for either LOL 
She is very, very sound environmentally, with other animals, noises, etc just NOT people. Frustrating.


----------



## Castlemaid

> Nothing can stay "on" all the time. That is a simple matter of physiology. And a brain wired to be "on" all the time is unhealthy and unbalanced, physically and psychologically. That sort of wiring in the brain can lead to neurosis and physical health problems in any species


Few of us are actually working dogs all day, every day, so it is hard to understand what being "on" all the time can do to a dog. But as an illustration, I talked to a guy some years ago who actually herded sheep for a living. In some areas that have been logged over and re-planted, they used sheep to keep the weeds down for the first few years, instead of herbicides, like they used to do) to give the saplings a chance to take hold and grow up. This meant being out working in the boonies all alone, day after day, covering huge tracts of land, with a herding dog. 

This person told me that most people had Border Collies (of course), but they had to have several with them, because the BC's were so intense, they did not know when to shut down, and would burn themselves out from being always "on". So peopel took two or three dogs with them, and the dogs took turns working. This guy had a Border Collie Cross, and said his dog, being a mix, had all the herding instinct and work ethic needed to do the job, but wasn't so wired that he couldn't relax and chill when things were quiet, and knew how to pace himself physically and mentally and did the job of 3 dogs all by itself without burning out.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> Anyways...historical texts. We're back to no evolution, no progress, no advancement. That's the dog world in a nut shell for you. Sit there while the world passes you by...and then wonder why all the "real work" venues are going to other breeds.


What am I missing here.. 

Martemchik says the gsd was once the working dog of choice? And now it is quickly being replaced.

In the same sentence he said that it has evolved and that was a good thing.

So connecting the dots of those thoughts.. The only logical conclusion is that they have regressed rather than evolved?


----------



## martemchik

Chris Wild said:


> You probably don't realize it, but now you're arguing part of my my point. There is NO value to the ADHD dog in real work because there isn't a venue where that level of drive and energy is required to be sustained for any period of time. Sure, the dog in a higher state of drive than is needed doesn't matter PROVIDED he can still think clearly and be responsive in unfamiliar, distracting situations rather than just familiar ones like trial fields (many can't) and is able to keep going for however long the job takes. Problem is, going into the situation no one will know how long it will take. The dog going 55 on the freeway will still get the job done in sufficient time, and if the trip turns out to be longer than expected he's also going to make it farther down the road on his tank of gas than the guy going 90. He's also a lot less likely to miss his exit.


No, I get it...my point was just that a dog that is in higher drive from the long down to the send out, doesn't make an ADHD dog. Some dogs can withstand that level of drive for the 30 minutes that they're on the field for. There is no issue with that, and it shouldn't be seen as a fault. It means the dog has the drive to sustain that. Are the dogs that can't even settle in the car worth it? Not at all. But I don't see too many of those dogs getting far in IPO, they sure aren't going to make the highest level if they can't stay calm in a car while waiting for their turn...they will for sure burn all their energy before even stepping onto the field.

Going into a "real" situation...if it takes longer than 30 minutes, no matter what kind of dog it is, they'll crash. But real work generally doesn't ask the dog to be at the same level IPO asks for in regards to obedience, protection or apprehension, that's just going to come out of the dog no matter what. There are also very few dogs that can sustain a fight with a human for a prolonged period of time. The hope would be that it doesn't take the handler more than a few minutes to actually get to the dog in that situation. So again...dog just needs to stay "calm enough" in the time leading up to the actual apprehension or search. Most dogs can handle this.


----------



## martemchik

WesS said:


> What am I missing here..
> 
> Martemchik says the gsd was once the working dog of choice? And now it is quickly being replaced.
> 
> In the same sentence he said that it has evolved and that was a good thing.
> 
> So connecting the dots of those thoughts.. The only logical conclusion is that they have regressed rather than evolved?


I'm missing where I said that as well. Please feel free to use the "quote" feature we all know you can use.

Also, it's fun calling people out but not answering the questions they pose of you.


----------



## Chris Wild

He did use the quote feature. I asked the same question.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with a dog who can remain in drive for 30 minutes or more. There is nothing wrong with that. Such dogs, IF they can remain clear headed and IF they have the physical stamina to sustain it, and IF they can also pace themselves and show some good judgement are very valuable. This has long been one of the things that has hampered the GSD in some of the ringsports where the obedience and protection sessions are longer and also come one right after the other without a break. Most GSDs can't do that. They do not have the same sort of temperament and nervous system as a Mal, and thus most cannot sustain that level of performance for that long. Doesn't make one or the other a better or worse dog, just different dogs for different purposes.

The problem arises when the dog's brain is wired in such a way that this becomes his natural state. That he goes into drive and stays in drive for no reason. For something like the long down, there simply is no reason. I've known plenty of dogs who have a horrible time settling on the down because they are constantly buzzing with energy. These dogs show well in the active areas but that passive area where they are expected to quietly do nothing is a big problem. Owned such a dog in the past. Drove me nuts. 

Sure, giving such a busy mind something to focus on, like the handler in the blind, can be a very good thing from a training standpoint and can help keep the dog from doing something stupid.

The problem is that that same high strung behavior is never limited to just one scenario. It will bleed over to others. For some things, the energy can be useful, but for others detrimental.

The problem I fear coming is that, as has happened with every breed in every venue, with the show ring being the most obvious example, what is rewarded with points and ribbons will start being not just trained for, but bred for. And since breeding is about selecting for desirable traits, if things that are valuable on a sport field, even if they are detrimental in other areas of work, they will certainly be bred for. After all it is much easier to achieve the desired results with a dog who comes by it somewhat naturally.


----------



## martemchik

Maybe I can't read as well as some of you, but no where in that quote does it say "GSD was the working dog of choice."

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Or we can just keep misquoting, making things up that others don't say, just to prove a point.


----------



## carmspack

lhczth said:


> It isn't unusual to base a program totally on the strength of the male genetics. Manfred Hyne did this with his herding lines. The female, of course, in Germany had to be titled and not a POS, but he wanted her mostly as an oven for his males' genetics. I work females and come from the horse/livestock world where female genetics are important. I am also looking for more than 1 or 2 good dogs in a litter so want to stack the deck in my favor.[/QUOTE
> 
> Manfred had some very antiquated ideas when it came to genetics . Both the female and the male contributed - not some idea of an animalcule that was inserted into a vessel to complete growth. Bah.
> His contemporary , Karl Fuller , also a herder , put great emphasis on his females , making pillars to his program and pillars to the breed. Thank you for that . That would be Dori aus der Wanderschaferei.
> To my knowledge Hain the kennel (not Manfred),
> and Blasienberg built there lines around the females , generation after generation . Even the founders including von Stephanitz returned to the females , the herding stock , to fix problems.
> Busecker Schloss , Vom haus Bungalow , vom Itztal (Quicke)
> 
> when I do a breeding I am looking for "that" female , no "A" female . She needs to be able to advance her special character , and any fine tuning or additional improvement to the next generation , to her sons and daughters.
> 
> I have taken time to read through all pages , just catching up , so reply is scattered , as topics come up.
> 
> martemchik said "Exceptional dogs and exceptional training shows on more than one occasion. Trainers that are consistently getting high scores, are never the ones complaining about judges or making excuses about their dog on a given day. And it really doesn’t matter what sport you’re talking about. A CD is a great accomplishment, but a CD with 3 legs at over 195 is even better. Dock diving is great, but a dog that jumps over 20 feet is even better. A Schutzhund title is great, but V scores make others notice the dog. A UDX is a great accomplishment, but a OTCH truly sets you apart from the pack."
> 
> YES -- been there done that , but that is the very thing that you always discount or criticize as having no value or valididity. 3 Dog World Awards of Canine Distinction , two dogs, mother and daughter -- all scores over 197.5 - CD and CDX , then later with score of 199.5 Obedience Grand Victrix at the National event going against some very tough competition . Then yes Otch's , and yes TDX's and yes Urban Tracking Dog Excellents , and being used as the pillar of a considered breeding program which produced bomb dogs (multiple) , SAR , Avalanche , and even Police Dog of the Year , Patrol and specialized detection and even SWAT initial entry dogs . Oh and Sch H and French Ring --
> 
> These dogs lived in within a family dynamic. They were naturally hardy . Never had digestive upset - diarrhea ? what is that ? Had cast iron stomaches , could eat anything. Did not have obsessive compulsive problems . Did not have extreme angulation . Had functional conformation for endurance with naturally strong ligaments and cartilage . No allergies . Regular cycles. Strong desire to breed , natural maternal instincts . Would try anything that you asked them and would keep trying without breaking down or sulking or shutting down.
> I can not stand a hectic, hyper dog or excitable dog . That is like a frayed electrical wire thrashing around . They had to have a solid , unflappable , quiet character . Cool as a cucumber . Great power -- the power for the fight has to be there for me .
> I look for genetic obedience . I look for handler interest and compliance without treats or bribe . I want strong natural tracking skills where the ability to perform is a reward in and of itself. I want dogs that get job satisfaction . Partly because it is a self and unlimited motivation and because the dog understands what needs to be done , beginning to completion and make independent decisions (if needed) to do the job . Too much training I see for sport is micromanaging everything the dog will do .
> The dogs have to have the physical and mental stamina to do the work. They are weather hardy -- work in hot and work in cold , work in wet and dark , don't have fear of wind or thunder .
> 
> you criticized Gildo -- he produced some tough high fight dogs (Stoffelblick) and he produced high hunt drive. Having spoken with a person who grew up with Gildo in the household I can say he was no prancy trial dog (Barenfang). Also having had discussions with a person who knew Gildo before he joined this kennel - I can vouch that the dog was a tough dog .
> to this "Watched the video of Gildo. If anybody is interested, he barked a total of 57 times, lol "
> 
> I don't believe it . Unbelievable .
> 
> same goes to this "From what I see when it comes to K9 or guide dog selection, it's more who you know than how good your dogs really are"
> Good grief .
> 
> It looks like if I am going to get the dog I want I will look to a breeder who has been around for a long time and knows and appreciates the old bloodlines .


----------



## gsdsar

I can only speak to what I know well. I don't know IPO well. I consider myself a newbie. 

I ask about things like agility and hunt drive because they are important to what I am passionate about SAR. 

In a wilderness SAR scenario/true search or training, the dogs may be asked to work 6 hours. In all weather. No dog can feasibly work in full drive for 6 hours. So it was important that the dog be able to switch in and out of drive on their own based on circumstance. Though not in drive, the dog still had to work. The dog still neede to range to get out into the area and position themself for finding scent. Once the scent was found, the true hunt drive kicked in and they would follow, however they could, until source was found. So they stayed in a low level of hunt, but not high for a majority of the search. They trotted or "loped" a good part of it. They took direction from the handler and remained attentive. But they also learned "intelligent disobedience". Which I am sad to say my dog had to use a lot. Often I would not see he was working scent and try to call him back or redirect him. He would ignore me. That is "obedience to scent". 

And that type of work ethic, drive and ability is not tested in IPO. IPO tracking really does not test hunt much at all. And to be honest, it's too short to test true work ethic as well. 

That said. I enjoy IPO tracking. My boy is decent at it. His nose isn't deep enough for some, but I don't care. It's deep enough to pass. 

As for agility. I am not talking about structured agility, like competitive agility. I am talking more about a dogs comfort level on crazy things. Not only that, but the ability to be calm and yet comfortable enough to engage and play. Comfortable enough to keep a clear head and take direction. It's not about speed. 

Both of these things are important to me. And I think show a dogs character and work ethic. That I personally don't think is evaluated in depth enough in IPO. 

I do think it all boils down to people will breed dogs that will be successful at the things they want to participate in. It's human nature. You want to do IPO, you look for a dog or produce/breed dogs that will be more easily trained in that venue. 

But I stand firm that it cannot be the only test. It cannot be the only stick to which you measure a dog. But maybe that's because I want a dog to do more than that? 

I see nothing wrong with "best at nothing, second best at everything" a true utility dog. One that succeed in many venues. Not just one.


----------



## Chris Wild

martemchik said:


> Maybe I can't read as well as some of you, but no where in that quote does it say "GSD was the working dog of choice."
> 
> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Or we can just keep misquoting, making things up that others don't say, just to prove a point.


This truly is getting ridiculous. You said "wonder why the real work people are going to other breeds". The context clearly inferring that they are moving FROM the GSD to others (and also implying that this is due to lack of what you consider progress). I naturally took that to mean that you were aware that they actually had a reason to have been using GSDs at one time. After all, how could they be moving away from something unless they were with it in the first place?

This used to be THE working breed, the world over. That is fact. It is history. Oh wait.. I forgot.. history doesn't matter. Nevermind.....


----------



## martemchik

It wasn't said that I inferred that...it was said that I explicitly said it. My fault, maybe it's that English is my second language. I didn't realize "said" and "inferred" were the same thing. People complaining all the time that they don't understand me...guess there's a language barrier.


----------



## onyx'girl

where are you from, I never knew English is not your native language...


----------



## Xeph

> I can vouch that the dog was a tough dog .
> to this "Watched the video of Gildo. If anybody is interested, he barked a total of 57 times, lol "


Wasn't making fun of the dog. Working lines are generally of no interest to me.

I brought it up because earlier in the thread, Jane (I believe) mentioned that at her club, they want to get the dog in the habit of getting the dog to bark continuously 50+ times. 

So I counted Gildo's barks in the blind.

I have no real opinion of him, just counted the barks for funsies.


----------



## mycobraracr

I haven't had a chance to catch up, but I had an idea. I'm a member of a car racing forum as well. Once a year it holds a national racing event. A chance for everyone to come together, talk cars and race each other. Why don't we find a central location and have a GSD forum get together and work dogs. Members can bring their dogs, club members, helpers and so on. Then we can discuss training styles, dogs, behaviors and so on in real time. With the same dog on the same day and same picture for all of us to look at and see for ourselves what we are talking about. That way we can all have an idea of what one another says when comparing drive level, threshold and everything else. Just a thought.


----------



## martemchik

Great idea Jeremy! There's already a small get together planned for the middle of November in Kentucky. Would be great to see people there! I think it's centered around a trial, so maybe some people can enter their dogs and show us what it's all about.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> Great idea Jeremy! There's already a small get together planned for the middle of November in Kentucky. Would be great to see people there! I think it's centered around a trial, so maybe some people can enter their dogs and show us what it's all about.


You just spoke for pages and pages about real workability...

Now you want people to work dogs in ipo trial conditions again... Back to your safe zone...
It's as if everything you say is completely made up from thin air. I don't think that's the idea mycobar had or have anything to do with this discussion.


----------



## martemchik

My bad Wes, didn't realize this was a get together for all the people that have trained and placed a dual purpose K9 from start to finish. That's good though, they can all share a hotel room. Won't take long for them to share all their ideas and training methods.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> My bad Wes, didn't realize this was a get together for all the people that have trained and placed a dual purpose K9 from start to finish. That's good though, they can all share a hotel room. Won't take long for them to share all their ideas and training methods.


No it was obviously an open invitation for anybody interested or able to attend irrelevant if they work their dogs or not.

Those who want to show off the workability of their dogs and show how their training is transferable outside of their sports can do so and have a civilized discussion. Would also be nice to address it from a breeding perspective and why what they do is important for the breed.

I think it's a great idea. Should make a periscope session so we can all watch and ask live questions from all over the world. Maybe the forum should sponsor it


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Lol a get together?? That would burst some bubbles. People actually having to show their dogs and training??!! Madness.

I'll say it again. Police, Sar, AKC sports. Finding dogs for this is not hard. Top IPO? Not so much. There is a reason for that.


----------



## cliffson1

I agree with Blitzkrieg!, because the GS was not created to be a top sport dog!! The founder actually implored future breeders to not breed FOR show or trials.


----------



## David Taggart

Max von Stephanitz: "If the dog is not a working dog - this dog is not a German Shepherd dog."
Germany was, is, and always will be the holder of the highest standards for GSD only because this country has never failed Max Stephanitz. Breeding without participation in IPO is simply impossible, that's why dogs imported from Germany are the most valuable. I have read quite a few articles on a threat American Working Line faces with police less and less interested in wasting their badget on dogs, so guys, the future of the line vry well may depend on enthusiasts like you.


----------



## carmspack

except , Cliff , Blitzkrieg feels that every dog working outside of sport is below standard , that the quality isn't there.


----------



## Vandal

> Germany was, is, and always will be the holder of the highest standards for GSD only because this country has never failed Max Stephanitz.


I'll have what he's having.^

Never failed them....lol. right.:help:


----------



## WesS

Vandal said:


> Germany was, is, and always will be the holder of the highest standards for GSD only because this country has never failed Max Stephanitz.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have what he's having.^
> 
> Never failed them....lol. right.
Click to expand...

The statement is too strong. But I feel they have done a better job than most other countries.

Some countries who think it's okay to take titling/working completely out specific breed lines and call it a gsd. Well that is ridiculous.


----------



## cliffson1

Carmen, I was being tongue in Cheek. People started breeding dogs FOR show during the sixties approximately. We see how that turned out. The sport craze really gathered steam in 80/90s, give it another 25 years. I don't debate the new experts because I remember when the show folks started altering the structure of the breed in mid seventies and they used the same arguments in principle( progress, change is better, we were too stubborn to see the advantages of this new type dog, blah, blah, blah!), but you started seeing an increase in health issues and less and less of them in any service functional use except pets and man contrived show/obedience exercises. Nerve and adaptability went out the window. It has gotten to point that some of these people, if they breed a dog that will go somewhere without showing fear, they deemed that good temperament as long as they were not stressed. So now we have new non functional use experts that are pushing the breed to compete with Mals in sport and work. Carmen, give it another twenty-five years.


----------



## G-burg

> Lol a get together?? *That would burst some bubbles.* People actually having to show their dogs and training??!! Madness.


That's an interesting comment.. And one that could go either way, no?!! 


I do believe the New England region does this.. Training weekends where everyone can (clubs) get together and train their dogs and have fun!!

I wish they did that in our region..


----------



## cliffson1

My last post on this thread, I'm not anti sport or anti show. I am anti breeding FOR show or sport. Why do I think sport will diminish the functional use of the breed? Because like Show, likes and breeding for traits that make top sport dog will dominate breeding choices. The gene pool will get so narrow because of these traits like Black and red or shoulder/angulation. Sport breeders narrative will be we can't use DDR blood....not enough drive, can't use WGSL blood.....not enough athleticism, can't use ASL .....structure and nerve, can't use Czech.....too nervy and not enough drive. Soon there is only going to be Troll/Timmy derived lines that meet the " likes" of the sport breeder. Then comes the breakdown in health and nerve. It will happen, trust me. Now there are some more enlightened breeders who are mixing Czech and West working for a much more versatile dog....I applaud them.....but the core sport breeders locked into the high prey sport dog is running out of genetic lines within their sphere. I recently saw a super west working line that had nice mixture of old German lines and the current lines through Troll/Timmy. Very nice! But the old German lines are becoming impossible to have up close, so most will be Troll/Timmy laden and I see decline in versatile functionality. Either way, the new type of sport dog is in vogue, there are experts in this field and time will tell the story.
I hope some can see how I think this ties into the OP topic as I feel that for consistently breeding the type dog that can be successful all around, it starts with genetics and understanding what a German Shepherd should and should not be.


----------



## martemchik

G-burg said:


> Lol a get together?? *That would burst some bubbles.* People actually having to show their dogs and training??!! Madness.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting comment.. And one that could go either way, no?!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe the New England region does this.. Training weekends where everyone can (clubs) get together and train their dogs and have fun!!
> 
> I wish they did that in our region..
Click to expand...

Yup...I hear a lot of good about that region, probably also why they tend to have the most competitors at national events.

Most regions it seems like are just like this forum. A complete lack of respect for anything or anyone that does anything different. If it's not your way, it's the wrong way. If it's not the type of dog you'd breed, it's not a dog that should be bred.

And then the passive aggressive comments and name calling...


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> Yup...I hear a lot of good about that region, probably also why they tend to have the most competitors at national events.
> 
> Most regions it seems like are just like this forum. A complete lack of respect for anything or anyone that does anything different. If it's not your way, it's the wrong way. If it's not the type of dog you'd breed, it's not a dog that should be bred.
> 
> And then the passive aggressive comments and name calling...


I would love to hear the comments and also learn from those people that have placed multiple dogs at nationals. Have you titled and placed dogs at nationals? 
Ivan Balbanoav seems to do work outside the sport he is a multiple champion in, extensively and regularly. His breeding programs seem to be more focused on the complete dog than just getting high points with them.

"The priority in our breeding program is to produce Malinois with superior trainability, fearless temperament, as well as mental and physical health. We do not breed for “specific sport” or purpose. Our Malinois are successful in all areas! "
-- Ivan Balbanoav


----------



## lhczth

Come down to the Mid-East region. We have many top competition clubs using a mixture of lines. Many of these clubs also have LE, SAR and USAR handlers who do both. We have training weekends and get togethers and most of the clubs get along very well.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> Yup...I hear a lot of good about that region, probably also why they tend to have the most competitors at national events.
> 
> Most regions it seems like are just like this forum. A complete lack of respect for anything or anyone that does anything different. If it's not your way, it's the wrong way. If it's not the type of dog you'd breed, it's not a dog that should be bred.
> 
> And then the passive aggressive comments and name calling...


You see there are multiple approaches and ways of thinking I get that. But its hard for you to represent the other 'side' when you have not mastered it.

I get that new competitors might think this way (In any sport irrelevant of dogs). But through experience they seem to change their minds and ego driven desires where placement, scoring and getting a dog through a sport is their only concern, and then believe everything else will magically fall into place.

So yes these guys have big contributions to make. I am not sure all of the top guys of the 'other side' share your views. It seems you fall in your own category. This is not sport vs real working dogs I believe. You are creating that impression.

It often comes down to human flaws. Human flaws where there can only be one champion. One top dog. One first finisher. And everyone strives to be that top dog. Irrelevant of consequence.


----------



## G-burg

> Most regions it seems like are just like this forum. A complete lack of respect for anything or anyone that does anything different. If it's not your way, it's the wrong way. If it's not the type of dog you'd breed, it's not a dog that should be bred.
> 
> And then the passive aggressive comments and name calling...


I don't know if I would say this forum is like that completely... 

For me, I personally love when those that have been in Schutzhund for a long time and have seen the changes, speak and share... We all can learn from that.. It has changed my way of thinking over the years and I can clearly now see what they are talking about.. I don't get offended or take it personally.. I use too, but not anymore... Because what they are saying makes sense to me!

I think IPO should go back to being Schutzhund and what it was originally used for.. And I don't even breed dogs.. I also think the sport/competition/points side should be a whole other venue! the one that can show off the training, judging, helperwork and lastly the dogs..

That's what I would like to see.. But it will never happen..


----------



## martemchik

Wes, buddy, I'm not answering any of your questions until you start answering mine. I can play the "forum" game just as well as anyone else. It's easy to call people out, point out how they don't answer questions, discredit them due to the lack of an answer. So, you can stop posing questions, stop with the psycho babble, I really don't care.

Lisa...we'll definitely come down! Should be getting the trailer in 2 days! It will make traveling with the dogs much much easier. Definitely have some people down there that will get a chance to have some fun with my "sport" dogs.


----------



## martemchik

Leesa...just because I don't get down on my knees with thankfulness and bow after every single comment doesn't mean I don't understand what they're saying. Fact is...IPO isn't going back to anything and no amount of complaining about "how things used to be" is going to bring it back to what it was. It has changed DUE TO people that have done Schutzhund just as long as some of the people commenting. They're the ones that changed it, not "new experts."

Maybe there's a disconnection somewhere because there's an expectation that just because I read something on the interweb I will need to agree with it and fall in line with it even though no one I ACTUALLY train with says anything like this, and tons of people out there with tons experience have a completely different opinion as well. Unfortunately we don't have any of those people on this forum, the ones that are training dogs to a high level, have been doing it for decades, and so that side doesn't have a voice. Of course, here, due to the experience gap, when the "new experts" try to give that side a voice, we just get told "we don't know what we're talking about." Would be fun to see how many of these people would say that to their contemporaries that have the same views I do.


----------



## G-burg

Max~ I'm not asking anyone to get down on there knees or agree with anyone else.. Hence why I said "for me" It has changed my way of thinking.. and I am thankful for them sharing..


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> Leesa...just because I don't get down on my knees with thankfulness and bow after every single comment doesn't mean I don't understand what they're saying. Fact is...IPO isn't going back to anything and no amount of complaining about "how things used to be" is going to bring it back to what it was. It has changed DUE TO people that have done Schutzhund just as long as some of the people commenting. They're the ones that changed it, not "new experts."
> 
> Maybe there's a disconnection somewhere because there's an expectation that just because I read something on the interweb I will need to agree with it and fall in line with it even though no one I ACTUALLY train with says anything like this, and tons of people out there with tons experience have a completely different opinion as well. Unfortunately we don't have any of those people on this forum, the ones that are training dogs to a high level, have been doing it for decades, and so that side doesn't have a voice. Of course, here, due to the experience gap, when the "new experts" try to give that side a voice, we just get told "we don't know what we're talking about." Would be fun to see how many of these people would say that to their contemporaries that have the same views I do.


Rule makers are always in the bussiness of selling dogs. Not advancing the breed. 
Make IPO easier. Change a few rules. More certs. More sales. Higher prices. More Cash, Money. 
Simple economics really.

Same reasons American Show lines took off. Its the easiest way to sell a lot of dogs with least effort. Still have a 'stud champ'. And still charge exhauberent prices.
So now the top dogs are forced to master some flawed parameters so that less able dogs can also get certed.
You constantly talk about advancement in the breed. I dont know what world you are living in. But Money and profit margins is what advances in the world these days above all else.

So it was so enlightening to hear all these concerns by people in the sport for years. I read carefully. Because from an Economics/Profit maximising stand-point that is the obvious evolution. And they are all saying the same things.

Now if the cash cow suites what you are doing. You are going to shut-up. If you only care about the breed, you speak up. Or you lack experience and just follow what those around you are saying.

Balbanoav's perspective is very unique as he is leading the belgian Mal association and can do what he likes and say what he likes without worrying about the profit margins.


----------



## WesS

WesS said:


> Balbanoav's perspective is very unique as he is leading the belgian Mal association and can do what he likes and say what he likes without worrying about the profit margins.


Wait for Max the movie though. Thats may change soon. Looks like the Mal might be the worlds next top pet dog.

Also martem the answer to the question I asked you is: None PM's love em...


----------



## Vandal

I've watched what Wes is talking about. Quite interesting how money does change people's perspective. Started with the show dogs when the first Sieger Show took place here in the US. Suddenly, people were offering to title dogs for others.

Now, we see people who title a dog or two and then they set up shop starting dogs for people in the sport. Same goes for the paid helpers. You tell me how being honest with someone about a dog who isn't really suited for breeding, or even the training, is good for business.
I've seen the cynical attitude where these people say nice things to the person's face and then are a bit more honest in different company. I've also watched the paid sleeves working the dogs in a way to make them "look good" in order to make the customers happy.
SchH was designed to be about the dogs. About people learning about their dogs through training and titling them. It was never intended to be something where basically a "show handler" takes your dog and titles it for you so you can breed it.

Also, it takes actually training a few dogs before things start to become more clear. You can be lucky and start out with a really great dog or vice versa. The next dog comes and you start to appreciate the one before that dog or you realize that dog was missing something. That's how I learned.

For me, money clouds everything. That "customer service" aspect comes into play. I've been right there watching how some of the show dogs were titled. Helpers handing very insecure dogs tripe with their stick hand to keep the dog there long enough in the trial for the handler to capture it and so on. There is no disputing what has happened with those dogs. Like Cliff said, it may take a while but the nerves are already starting to go. Said that in my last post about the behaviors that some people now what to dismiss, or assign to other things. Like the show dogs, it all manages to stay afloat, ( with the kind of "help" I just talked about), and then suddenly, it just crashes.


----------



## martemchik

IPO is easier now? That's a funny statement coming from someone who's never even seen a training field. Good luck in IPO, hopefully I see you this November at nationals Wes, maybe we can have a real discussion then. PM huh? Maybe some of those brave people wouldn't mind posting their accomplishments in anything to do with dogs for all to see. Much easier to attack someone behind their back than to do it publically or even in person when they've had their chance to say something. Easy to hide behind a computer screen.

Anne...completely agree with you. Once money is involved things change. But it would be communism to expect people not to make a living off of something like this. The hunt for profits definitely has its benefits and its drawbacks.


----------



## Vandal

If you want to talk about economic systems and about how things could be communism, the fact is, in America we are a capitalist system but there were standards that you had to meet. Safety standards for cars and food etc. 
Now we have companies who skirt the rules and sell absolute garbage while trying to pretend it's the same thing. That's what I'm talking about. The corrupt people at the top that allow this to happen.
Lots of people jumping on the bandwagon to get what they can get out of it and destroying a lot of things along the way. I don't want to get into politics but there are way too many politicians in this activity now. And lots of people who are being manipulated by them.


----------



## holland

Vandal said:


> I've watched what Wes is talking about. Quite interesting how money does change people's perspective. Started with the show dogs when the first Sieger Show took place here in the US. Suddenly, people were offering to title dogs for others.
> 
> Now, we see people who title a dog or two and then they set up shop starting dogs for people in the sport. Same goes for the paid helpers. You tell me how being honest with someone about a dog who isn't really suited for breeding, or even the training, is good for business.
> I've seen the cynical attitude where these people say nice things to the person's face and then are a bit more honest in different company. I've also watched the paid sleeves working the dogs in a way to make them "look good" in order to make the customers happy.
> SchH was designed to be about the dogs. About people learning about their dogs through training and titling them. It was never intended to be something where basically a "show handler" takes your dog and titles it for you so you can breed it.
> 
> Also, it takes actually training a few dogs before things start to become more clear. You can be lucky and start out with a really great dog or vice versa. The next dog comes and you start to appreciate the one before that dog or you realize that dog was missing something. That's how I learned.
> 
> For me, money clouds everything. That "customer service" aspect comes into play. I've been right there watching how some of the show dogs were titled. Helpers handing very insecure dogs tripe with their stick hand to keep the dog there long enough in the trial for the handler to capture it and so on. There is no disputing what has happened with those dogs. Like Cliff said, it may take a while but the nerves are already starting to go. Said that in my last post about the behaviors that some people now what to dismiss, or assign to other things. Like the show dogs, it all manages to stay afloat, ( with the kind of "help" I just talked about), and then suddenly, it just crashes.


I have definitely seen people who say one thing to a person's face and another thing entirely behind their back. It amazes me that people believe those people are their friends ...sad. 

I have also seen people spending time on the internet ripping other people and their dogs apart and am not quite sure of the reason for that. Maybe that is just what happens when someone is successful. 

When I have traveled-I have e-mailed clubs and asked to visit and they have always been welcoming and its been a fun experience for me. You get a chance to see different dogs and different ways of doing something-and the people in those clubs were very experienced. My last club used to train with a club in a different state.


----------



## WesS

martemchik said:


> IPO is easier now? That's a funny statement coming from someone who's never even seen a training field. Good luck in IPO, hopefully I see you this November at nationals Wes, maybe we can have a real discussion then. PM huh? Maybe some of those brave people wouldn't mind posting their accomplishments in anything to do with dogs for all to see. Much easier to attack someone behind their back than to do it publically or even in person when they've had their chance to say something. Easy to hide behind a computer screen.
> 
> Anne...completely agree with you. Once money is involved things change. But it would be communism to expect people not to make a living off of something like this. The hunt for profits definitely has its benefits and its drawbacks.


Im just echoing what has been discussed here at length. I have not made a single original contribution to this thread. I have cumulated information posted by others. And pieced together what I think is happening based on some obvious economic observations. 
Which you are beginning to see. It just takes a very strong individual to realise that sometimes people lie to you to keep taking money out your pocket. Making money works both ways. Sometimes its not best to trust those people solely.

I have no doubt you will eventually title your dog in IPO, weather it is breed worthy or not. I also have no doubt, that you will eventually breed it. Weather it is worthy or not. If that is your only goal. The stars will align. It WILL happen. But I ask you, something that is inevitable? Is that really a true selection for the best of the breed, and what is in fact best for the breed? 

Do you even care what is best for the breed? Or are you just interested in titling and getting that approval? Selling some dogs? Some of us, do care what is best for the breed. We are learning constantly. Our experience is different. Unlike you I am not trying to prove that I am something special in the dog world. I am not. So on these topics I listen intently. I have absorbed a lot of information here.


----------



## MadLab

Wes this is for you


----------



## WesS

MadLab said:


> Wes this is for you
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KSPy1c21vE


Thank you lovely video  I have seen it though.


----------



## lhczth

This thread is starting to take on a personal back and forth bickering tone again. I can not edit at the moment so people can either moderate themselves and stop the personal stuff or I'll come back in and remove you all together once I can access the BB on my computer. 

ADMIN Lisa


----------



## martemchik

I really prefer that a moderator takes care of the clear personal attack on me and my kennel, as well as my personal beliefs on breeding and what is breed worthy. I know exactly the type of response from the mods/admins I would receive if I would question some of the other people that breed on the forum the way that I was just questioned.

It always seems to be a "timing issue" when something negative is written about me, but yet other members, posts seem to disappear within seconds.


----------



## WesS

Okay back to discussion. I have an honest question.

Lets look at west german show lines that must get titled according to SV standard. Now we look at working lines. Who are supposed to obviously be the superior lines for achievement in trials.

Is it not logical that a working line dog that is bred strictly by sport consideration such as IPO achieve much higher and better than an equivalent WGSL dog?

If both dogs just need to get titled as a bare minimum requirement what really separates them? Is it not prevalent to think a WL dog needs to get a higher IPO level and standard/Point score? Or at least consider aspects beyond just the title?

I understand that for WGSL dog a minimum IPO1 rating might suffice. But can that also be true for a working line?

So you are either breeding and selecting for something 'more' than just IPO paperwork. Or they have to without doubt achieve at a much higher std. to be considered a true working line dog?

Basically what I am asking is weather a WL dog is worthy of being bred when its supposedly so much 'easier' for them to achieve a title than a WGSL dog. Shouldn't selective breeding be of higher std. or stricter for them in order to get good dogs and 'improve' those lines?


----------



## onyx'girl

I understand what you are saying WesS, and to legitimately title a SL can be more challenging than doing it with a WGWL. 
I train at a pay to train group with both lines and other breeds training regulary, and the helper works the dogs the same way foundation-wise...he brings out the best he can, yet there are always some issues with keeping the SL's engaged in the blind, the long bites(oops courage tests) need to have a bungee involved, though they work through it and the dogs score quite well in the club trial. Last fall they brought in a judge that is known for being a SL handler/trainer/breeder. There was no conformation judging at this particular trial. I do think the WL's were being judged with a sharper pencil than the SL's....but of course I am wrong all the time, so probably wrong in this observation as well. Feel free to correct me, as I'm sure it will happen 
most of the breeders that I know in this club will breed regardless of what is posted on this thread. There is a huge wait list for puppies it seems...I still wonder where they all go, lol


----------



## Liesje

WesS, the rules for a KKL in the USA and in Germany are the same for a GSD of any lines or mixing of lines, with one minor exception I will note:

- Show rating "G" or better (so G, SG, or V...these can only be earned by dogs 12+ months of age)
- OFA or A-stamp hip and elbow passing ratings (the one exception is that SV judges will not accept OFA elbows, those must be a-stamps, but you can do Koerungs in the USA under USCA judges so no matter)
- BH
- AD
- SchH1 or higher, or HGH title
- legitimate registration papers and unique identification (chip or tat)


----------



## mycobraracr

I'm still way behind on this thread. What I have gathered so far is, 1) Only world level IPO dogs should be bred. That's what a total of 5-10 females in the world? 2) NEVER train anything new or out of comfort zones, NEVER challenge a dog or have it do anything that can potentially cost you points in IPO. Because then you wouldn't know if you and your dog can make it to worlds and become breed worthy.


----------



## lhczth

mycobraracr said:


> I'm still way behind on this thread. What I have gathered so far is, 1) Only world level IPO dogs should be bred. That's what a total of 5-10 females in the world? 2) NEVER train anything new or out of comfort zones, NEVER challenge a dog or have it do anything that can potentially cost you points in IPO. Because then you wouldn't know if you and your dog can make it to worlds and become breed worthy.


LOL Interesting summary.


----------



## Jack's Dad

mycobraracr said:


> I'm still way behind on this thread. What I have gathered so far is, 1) Only world level IPO dogs should be bred. That's what a total of 5-10 females in the world? 2) NEVER train anything new or out of comfort zones, NEVER challenge a dog or have it do anything that can potentially cost you points in IPO. Because then you wouldn't know if you and your dog can make it to worlds and become breed worthy.


Good job Jeremy, "you got it" and put it in words we can all understand.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Just got through with a helper seminar. Got to work a few dogs.. Some titled some not. It was clear which were the strongest and which ones not so much regardless of training. Seeing more and more Mals out there and good ones too. Speed, grips, power, fight.. 
Catching and driving a good 70-85lb GSD feels like your dealing with a 75lb dog. Catching and driving a good 60lb Mal feels like a 110 lb dog they just give it 110% every time they go out there no half assing it.

We need more GSDs with this intensity.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Just got through with a helper seminar. Got to work a few dogs.. Some titled some not. It was clear which were the strongest and which ones not so much regardless of training. Seeing more and more Mals out there and good ones too. Speed, grips, power, fight..
> Catching and driving a good 70-85lb GSD feels like your dealing with a 75lb dog. Catching and driving a good 60lb Mal feels like a 110 lb dog they just give it 110% every time they go out there no half assing it.
> 
> We need more GSDs with this intensity.


Uh, not really. What happened to the utility GSD.

Anyway who wants a Mal in GSD clothing?

Isn't that kinda like the GSD in Lab clothing you guys bitch about all the time? You know the one for the "pet people".
That would be the people who own probably 90% of all GSDs.


----------



## mycobraracr

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Just got through with a helper seminar. Got to work a few dogs.. Some titled some not. It was clear which were the strongest and which ones not so much regardless of training. Seeing more and more Mals out there and good ones too. Speed, grips, power, fight..
> Catching and driving a good 70-85lb GSD feels like your dealing with a 75lb dog. Catching and driving a good 60lb Mal feels like a 110 lb dog they just give it 110% every time they go out there no half assing it.
> 
> We need more GSDs with this intensity.


I love an intense dog but, I spent the weekend at a PSA decoy camp. It was 100+ degrees out. What I found interesting. I had 1 of 2 GSD's there. The rest were mals and dutchies. Yes they cam in hard and fast, but they also seemed to get burned out fast. Once they started to get hot, their drive still carried them, but aspects where they have to think went to crap. Targeting, launch and things like that. My mediocre drive GSD had at least twice as many bites as every other dog this weekend. I haven't officially counted yet, but I have pictures and video of all of them. Nothing in my dog changed. Her launch, targeting and entry never changed. In the land of mals and dutchies, every single person came up to tell me how nice she was. She worked 15 decoys she'd never seen before. Some stabbed her on accident with a clatter stick, some jammed the crap out of her, and all were trying to run her. She was in scenarios that she'd never seen with people she'd never seen. She came out like a super star. Yet some of the titled mal and dutchies had problems with some of the scenarios. Did they still engage? Most of them did. But again, targeting launch, grip and everything else suffered.


----------



## mycobraracr

Jack's Dad said:


> Uh, not really. What happened to the utility GSD.
> 
> Anyway who wants a Mal in GSD clothing?
> 
> Isn't that kinda like the GSD in Lab clothing you guys bitch about all the time? You know the one for the "pet people".
> That would be the people who own probably 90% of all GSDs.



Great points!!!


----------



## carmspack

did the GSD do the job that was asked of it ?


----------



## mycobraracr

carmspack said:


> did the GSD do the job that was asked of it ?


Was this directed at me? My point was, that my GSD didn't burn herself out. She would have gone all day if I let her. She was extremely consistent in everything she did. No matter how tired she had to have been, she never lost her mind. Nothing rocked her, even when a 250 pound decoy jammed her up so bad she yelped. All it did was piss her off. I hard outed her, and it's a good thing PSA is a suit sport, because she would have taken a piece of him with her.


----------



## martemchik

What's the S in PSA stand for?


----------



## mycobraracr

martemchik said:


> What's the S in PSA stand for?




Sport as if you didn't already know that. I never said PSA was the best sport ever. Like all sports there are things I like and dislike about it. What do I like? Surprise scenarios. You never know what distractions, retrieve items, or anything until trial day. You generally don't get a practice day with the multiple decoys working the trial. It requires a ton of control. It has realistic application to it. I don't think there has been a handler/dog team to ever score a 100 on any exercise let alone trial. Out of the 15 or so years it's been around only, 13 dogs have ever achieved a PSA 3. Yes even at "club level", whatever that means.


----------



## carmspack

how does that intensity translate to jobs that are long and boring .. The GSD is a dog for mental and physical stamina --- trot effortlessly all day , work all day , which includes periods of readiness without being actively involved , on stand by . 

I don't know what the purpose is of comparing malinois with GSD all the time. They are different breeds , with different formational histories and functions . 

I have seen and worked beside some of the best malinois in French Ring , Ring Grand Champion Rocky and French lines GSD Espoir (who like many French bred dogs had combinations of work and the older show lines combined). 

Neither dog was a slacker .


----------



## onyx'girl

Protection "S"port Association PSA K9 | Protection Sports Association – civilian competition in canine obedience and controlled protection. though the S word is a bad word now....or so it seems


----------



## carmspack

mycobraracr said:


> Was this directed at me? My point was, that my GSD didn't burn herself out. She would have gone all day if I let her. She was extremely consistent in everything she did. No matter how tired she had to have been, she never lost her mind. Nothing rocked her, even when a 250 pound decoy jammed her up so bad she yelped. All it did was piss her off. I hard outed her, and it's a good thing PSA is a suit sport, because she would have taken a piece of him with her.


 good grief , not at all. That was directed at Blitzkrieg . Did the GSD do the job ? Then what else could you want . 

I know what you are talking about and I agree and have experienced this myself and my dogs .


----------



## GatorDog

PSA isn't nearly as popular of a sport as IPO. Obviously that is going to contribute to participation and the amount of dogs being titled. When I started in dog sports and found 4 IPO clubs within 30 minutes of me and not a single PSA club for 4+ hours, why would I have chosen to go there?

And any "sport" based trials have training programs. I just read the routine for the trials the other day with the idea of entering my female for the only trial available in my area until the end of the year, basically..And it is that - a routine. There are specific exercises that are done in each trial with variations of some things. And you train for them.

In regional level IPO and up, you don't get any practice with helpers. 

I agree with Jane. I'm not sure why "sport" is such a bad word..


----------



## onyx'girl

you have SDA in your area, nothing wrong with finding a trial to title in that venue.


----------



## GatorDog

onyx'girl said:


> you have SDA in your area, nothing wrong with finding a trial to title in that venue.


I just missed the last one with Carma having the puppies but I really would like to enter one before the end of the season.

ETA: I don't see any trials in my area now at all, other than the most recent event in June. Maybe I'm on the wrong website.


----------



## mycobraracr

GatorDog said:


> PSA isn't nearly as popular of a sport as IPO. Obviously that is going to contribute to participation and the amount of dogs being titled. When I started in dog sports and found 4 IPO clubs within 30 minutes of me and not a single PSA club for 4+ hours, why would I have chosen to go there?
> 
> 
> 
> And any "sport" based trials have training programs. I just read the routine for the trials the other day with the idea of entering my female for the only trial available in my area until the end of the year, basically..And it is that - a routine. There are specific exercises that are done in each trial with variations of some things. And you train for them.
> 
> 
> 
> In regional level IPO and up, you don't get any practice with helpers.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Jane. I'm not sure why "sport" is such a bad word..




Yes in the PDC, it's all the same. The PSA 1 is similar adding pressure, a decoy on the field in OB, muzzle in OB and one surprise scenario that you don't know until trial day. Once you step into PSA 2's, all bets are off. It's not a pattern based sport. The type of distractions and level can vary.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

mycobraracr said:


> I love an intense dog but, I spent the weekend at a PSA decoy camp. It was 100+ degrees out. What I found interesting. I had 1 of 2 GSD's there. The rest were mals and dutchies. Yes they cam in hard and fast, but they also seemed to get burned out fast. Once they started to get hot, their drive still carried them, but aspects where they have to think went to crap. Targeting, launch and things like that. My mediocre drive GSD had at least twice as many bites as every other dog this weekend. I haven't officially counted yet, but I have pictures and video of all of them. Nothing in my dog changed. Her launch, targeting and entry never changed. In the land of mals and dutchies, every single person came up to tell me how nice she was. She worked 15 decoys she'd never seen before. Some stabbed her on accident with a clatter stick, some jammed the crap out of her, and all were trying to run her. She was in scenarios that she'd never seen with people she'd never seen. She came out like a super star. Yet some of the titled mal and dutchies had problems with some of the scenarios. Did they still engage? Most of them did. But again, targeting launch, grip and everything else suffered.


See I have the opposite experience. God forbid trial day is hot. The GSDs with a few exceptions tended to come out of drive earlier then the Mals. Not mention that imo Mals handle the heat better all around. 

As for relaxing in off times.. I dont understand why this is even a question. Mals are working in military and LE applications in ever increasing numbers. Their real world working ability is not in question.

The Mals I have been working recently settle quite nicely in the truck and the house. When its time to work they bring it 110%. 
If anything its the GSDs that are all going nuts in the truck..tiring themselves out with pointless noise.

Not saying your wrong Myco, maybe you have a good one. Just what I have been noting in my personal experience. 

Personally I am a convert tot he dark side, I cant refute what I see every day on the field. 
I am going to be giving the GSD one more kick at the can this fall with a new prospect that fell into my lap. 
The one thing I would change about the Mals is less handler sensitivity in general.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

carmspack said:


> good grief , not at all. That was directed at Blitzkrieg . Did the GSD do the job ? Then what else could you want .
> 
> I know what you are talking about and I agree and have experienced this myself and my dogs .


 
Just getting the job done isnt good enough. Perhaps thats what some people breed..however, thats not my aspiration. In no time at all they go from good enough to no good at all.


----------



## GatorDog

mycobraracr said:


> Yes in the PDC, it's all the same. The PSA 1 is similar adding pressure, a decoy on the field in OB, muzzle in OB and one surprise scenario that you don't know until trial day. Once you step into PSA 2's, all bets are off. It's not a pattern based sport. The type of distractions and level can vary.


The exercises are all the same. There is heeling, retrieves, jumps, food refusal, position changes. All things that are very easily trained for. The whole discussion of pattern training has been had plenty of times on this forum. Yes, I'm sure some people do it, but there are more than plenty of people who don't. I don't even need to do stationary position changes in IPO and my dog has some **** good ones. Heeling under distractions is something you would train for before trial day. You'd practice situations in training to set your dog up for a trial situation. In IPO, the judge doesn't always walk behind you or your dog, but you can bet that I have a crowd of loud people walking around when available to train for those circumstances. You practice retrieves with random items. I'd say that it is extremely rare for anyone to go there on trial day with your dog having NEVER seen an exercise before. The rulebook says "the scenarios are known in principle". They're not just made up things that people have never ever seen before.


----------



## mycobraracr

GatorDog said:


> The exercises are all the same. There is heeling, retrieves, jumps, food refusal, position changes. All things that are very easily trained for. The whole discussion of pattern training has been had plenty of times on this forum. Yes, I'm sure some people do it, but there are more than plenty of people who don't. I don't even need to do stationary position changes in IPO and my dog has some **** good ones. Heeling under distractions is something you would train for before trial day. You'd practice situations in training to set your dog up for a trial situation. In IPO, the judge doesn't always walk behind you or your dog, but you can bet that I have a crowd of loud people walking around when available to train for those circumstances. You practice retrieves with random items. I'd say that it is extremely rare for anyone to go there on trial day with your dog having NEVER seen an exercise before. The rulebook says "the scenarios are known in principle". They're not just made up things that people have never ever seen before.



Here is a random PSA3 obedience video off youtube. I don't concider this the same as a judge walking in a different place on the field. Also in upper level PSA titles, your dog needs a secondary target. Yes easily trained but still something different. 

Edit: As far as the retrieves, in PSA the item can be anything. Kiddie pool, hula hoop, ashtray, whatever the judge decides. Again you don't know what it is going to be until trial day and every trial is something different. Yes, if you teach your dog a proper foundation in a retrieve and get it used to retrieving whatever you tell it, then sure not that hard. Service dogs do it. 

https://youtu.be/jGMQ--jWhcU

At any rate, this conversation was never about what sport is better. All sports have good and bad qualities.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlVtA4Y6gg

A thing of beauty and he produces well too.


----------



## GatorDog

mycobraracr said:


> Here is a random PSA3 obedience video off youtube. I don't concider this the same as a judge walking in a different place on the field. Also in upper level PSA titles, your dog needs a secondary target. Yes easily trained but still something different.
> 
> https://youtu.be/jGMQ--jWhcU
> 
> At any rate, this conversation was never about what sport is better. All sports have good and bad qualities.


Obviously its not the same as the judge walking..I was providing an example in hopes you might be able to relate. My point is that those scenarios are trained for. There is no way that the trainer in that video took her dog onto the field having never trained for that level of distraction. Its not something that is impossible to train for.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Here is a nice shepherd and also a good producer.

More like this and less like Gildo please..lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnmTW0LwCng


----------



## jmdjack

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Here is a nice shepherd and also a good producer.
> 
> More like this and less like Gildo please..lol.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnmTW0LwCng


By my quick count, Gildo appears at least 5 times in that dog's pedigree.


----------



## carmspack

Gildo was a producer of producers. 

Arek and Alf Stoffelblick -- next generation hard hard females Ina and Ira vom haus Gard !

Link Muikenshof grandson of Gildo (who I have on my pedigrees) http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=562872-carmspack-alza

Joe Kuhn, Kuhnhof kennels , a breeder who liked "man-stoppers" bred to Gildo . I owned and used this female in my program Binga vom Kuhnhof --- 

I saw many first and second generation dogs from Gildo . They were tough . After all his dam was Umsa Bungalow who could produce some pig headed stubborn dogs . Unflappable . A lot of the Gildo stuff came out of Quebec . Handler hard dogs .


----------



## mycobraracr

GatorDog said:


> Obviously its not the same as the judge walking..I was providing an example in hopes you might be able to relate. My point is that those scenarios are trained for. There is no way that the trainer in that video took her dog onto the field having never trained for that level of distraction. Its not something that is impossible to train for.



I agree, the level of distraction is trained for. My point is there are still unknowns. In some scenarios the decoy's can have a chainsaw. The first time that came up do you think people had trained to chainsaws before? Probably not. I'm sure people do now. So the imagination is the limit. It is impossible to train and desensitize to everything. So the training has to be on point. The dogs must be exposed to as much as possible so that the unknown becomes a comfortable place.


----------



## holland

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRlVtA4Y6gg
> 
> A thing of beauty and he produces well too.


Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder- I am just not a mal person-and I would love to see xrays of that dog in a few years time....


----------



## carmspack

selecting breeding genetics and the importance of the females --- (not being vessels)

thanks to the reminder of Gildo Korbelbach -- his DAM

Umsa Bungalow -- contributed active aggression , fight drive , to her progeny - including Gildo who passed it on the his legacy of IPO BSP PODIUM dogs - 

that's the irony, Blitzkrieg , you denigrate the dog yet his full genetic package is BSP podium dogs , known for intense fight drive -- and physical stamina 

these lines were used to improve nerve and aggression and genetic deep grip -- 

they were pig headed , handler hard dogs -- that was one thing that had to watched for .
Trouble in obedience portion.

But know the genetics and merge this tough character with biddable herding genetics and you have yourself one sweet dog .
Maybe with today's type of training with bribe and lure they wouldn't look good at all . Clear , fair , authority was needed. 

Descending lines from Gildo (who was V BSP) are Arek Stoffelblick (V BSP) Blacky Neuen Land (V BSP) ** 
side note - since we are talking about the value of females 
Blacky went on to produce Rani Daelenberghute bred 2-4 on Gildo . And then Rani bred to Belschik produced Vicky
SG Vicky von der Daelenberghutte , bringing in Gildo again .

The progeny of these dogs are seen working in law enforcement and the sport field.

this for now in digestible bits


----------



## Vandal

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blitzkrieg1*
> _Here is a nice shepherd and also a good producer.
> 
> More like this and less like Gildo please..lol.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnmTW0LwCng_
> 
> By my quick count, Gildo appears at least 5 times in that dog's pedigree.


The bloodline is represented even more than that. But I guess if it were up to the people who just don't seem to get it, Bolle wouldn't be here because his ancestors weren't "stylish" enough. 

Gildo certainly did pass on hardness and some very good dogs when used intelligently. I wonder where that hardness will be coming from for future generations. 
As mentioned, the Mals lack hardness. Leads to all kinds of other issues in the training, including handler aggression when paired with all that drive.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people talking about that with their Mals or seen the PDs who board here replacing those dogs. Yet, some think the GSD should be like a Mal. No, it's a different breed and as Jack pointed out, just like those who are breeding them to be like Goldens, (though an opposite philosophy), that thinking still spells out a level of ignorance that is destroying the breed.


----------



## Liesje

Is Bolle a "good producer" I am not challenging that just to be argumentative, he intrigues me but I've heard evidence to the contrary (though hearsay). Is he producing nice dogs, titled dogs?


----------



## Vandal

I see more dogs now who have kind of an edge to them. IMO, it is not really social aggression, it is more related to nerve strength. Might be okay to a degree if we had more dogs like we used to with great nerves but as I said earlier in the thread, that "variety" to choose from is going away. 
There is more of one type of dog now and those dogs would not really be the best partners for some of the others. 

I see things in Bolle that I don't care for. I know where it is coming from as well. I don't care if he is the BSP winner, there have been plenty of those dogs who just didn't offer much to the breed at the time they won. 
I saw Gildo sons and some of them would just bite the crap out of you for no reason. He was a dog who needed to be used wisely. You can see clearly in those videos what kind of dog he was and some of it was not good. Not because of the reasons people on this thread talked about but more the level of nastiness that some of the videos put on display. You could see it in his reaction to the pressure. Here is where the "no dog is perfect" idea comes into play and why people used the dog anyway.
Some didn't understand and used the dog the wrong way and with the wrong partners and others did and were successful using him.
Again, back then it was more about the dogs because it was a breed test.


----------



## martemchik

Again...working under the assumption that today's dogs aren't going to be good producers. Every 3-5 years has an "it" dog that you can point to that shows up in most pedigrees after 2-3 generations. Most of us can name the big name dogs, find them in the pedigrees of the "approved" breeders of this forum, and no one can deny that those dogs have produced.

I personally don't argue against the fact that the dogs of decades ago were good producers. But a BSP or WUSV podium dog will have proven progeny. It's a numbers game, law of averages. They'll have good dogs, they'll have bad dogs. There were a handful of Gildo's progeny named...out of how many? Hundreds? Thousands? Of course one of those dogs will have been placed in a venue where it could show what it was and also get known, possibly become a successful producer as well. I'm sure there were plenty of not note-worthy and probably bad dogs as well. Those dogs just get forgotten just like they would today.

Once you get to today's pedigree, Gildo, or any dog from the 80s, 90s, or whenever is probably doing to be just one of dozens of high placing dogs. I'm looking at pedigrees all the time and they're littered with BSP and WUSV dogs within 3-7 generations. Those dogs produced plenty of working and sport dogs, and today's WUSV and BSP dogs will do the same.

Also...the assumption that today's training methods wouldn't work with those dogs is also just that...an assumption. Baseless with absolutely nothing to back it up, if you can't try it (dog is dead) you can't make that statement. Today's methods are clearer than ever before and work with most dogs. Again...this is all going back to the assumption that if a dog is trained by the less harsh methods of today, it must be a cupcake that has no power and therefore "can't" be taught by the older methods. This is completely false, as the handler is clearly just choosing a different method, proven to be successful, and also achieve all the same things that the older methods could do. CLEAR and FAIR is at the core of today's methods.


----------



## carmspack

not only the training methods may not get the best results, the helper work won't show the best of the animal either . 

These dogs shone when under pressure and the fight drive was engaged. When given prey play that is common in decoy work they would only expose half of their potential - use what was needed - no need to go full throttle.

The pressure that they could endure could run many a dog into avoidance.


----------



## Vandal

I worked a number of dogs from that bloodline and I can promise you, they were not interested in looking at a ball in your armpit. You're just not correct about this particular bloodline Max. Yes, I think there were other lines that you could do that kind of training with but certainly not this one.


----------



## martemchik

carmspack said:


> not only the training methods may not get the best results, the helper work won't show the best of the animal either .
> 
> These dogs shone when under pressure and the fight drive was engaged. When given prey play that is common in decoy work they would only expose half of their potential - use what was needed - no need to go full throttle.
> 
> The pressure that they could endure could run many a dog into avoidance.


Stop ASSSUMING. You're just making assumptions. You can't prove ANYTHING you just said. So just stop. Stop with the sweeping generalizations. It's fine if you want to be right, but there is plenty of proof and information out there...VIDEO EVIDENCE that will disprove what you say.

Go back a few dozen pages and watch the videos that were posted of the "huge pressure" of yesteryear. Maybe that will get you to stop. There was no pressure. I'm happy that when you worked dogs, your helper put pressure on the dogs. But that was just you and your helper and some others across the country. Same as it is today. I can find you plenty of helpers that will pressure your dog to no end. If you ask me to do it, I'll be more than happy to do it as well. Not hard to prove to a person that you can run their dog. Want your dog worked under high pressure and stress? JUST ASK. Most will be more than happy to oblige you, and some will not. here is plenty of anecdotal information out there about helpers that people refuse to work with due to the amount of pressure they put on dogs. Want to work with that helper? Go nuts. It's your choice. No one is stopping you. Not all people think like you, not all people want what you want. Your way, isn't the only way, and it's still available. Complain when it stops being available.

I'm tired of reading the same drab from a person that hasn't seen helper work in years. I'm learning, so I'm watching tons of helpers. Trust me, they'll do pressure and put a dog in the magical fight *cough*defense*cough* drive you want. Some dogs thrive, others don't. The key is knowing what to do for that particular dog, and not just blindly doing the same thing for each one.


----------



## GatorDog

If it was only as simple as placing a ball in your armpit then I think a lot of people would be much more successful than they are.


----------



## Vandal

Does the dog have to show interest in that ball? Honestly, it seems there's just a need to argue without stopping to think for a second.
Max talks about assumptions when he's making his own set of them. The fact is, those dogs were not known for their high level of ball drive. Basically, in the dogs I saw by Gildo, there was none. I realize it's difficult for people now to believe that but it's true. People were using a different part of the dog for obedience. Gildo was not known for passing on willingness in obedience. As was already stated, these were "stubborn", mule-like dogs.


----------



## WesS

Question: What is this inherent desire to keep the gsd Working Lines 'pure'..

Why not cross breed GSD's with Belgians etc. I see some people do it. Is it a good idea or bad idea? Would any of you consider such pups? 

Why not just breed the best working dogs together for intended purpose irrelevant of breed? Is it because the dogs might be more unpredictable in breeding? Would you now have to call it a new breed and re-standardise?

Is that not how the GSD originated? Several top herding dogs?
Thanks.


----------



## GatorDog

Vandal said:


> Does the dog have to show interest in that ball? Honestly, it seems there's just a need to argue without stopping to think for a second.
> Max talks about assumptions when he's making his own set of them. The fact is, those dogs were not known for their high level of ball drive. Basically, in the dogs I saw by Gildo, there was none. I realize it's difficult for people now to believe that but it's true. People were using a different part of the dog for obedience. Gildo was not known for passing on willingness in obedience. As was already stated, these were "stubborn", mule-like dogs.


I understand that and I'm not trying to argue. But just as quickly as you say there are things in a video of a dog from today that you don't like, I can see many things in a video of the old dogs and training that I don't like. It's a matter of personal opinions, and personally, I don't care much for a mule-like dog. That's fine too. No crime against it, and no point in arguing.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Max is everyone assuming, except you? Throughout this thread and others you have made statements, proclamations, judgements about training, breeding, past dogs and any number of other things.
Apparently you are right and everybody else is wrong know matter how much experience they have.
You also put down the forum itself and especially "forum breeders", Why? What purpose is arguing until people get tired of it and ignore the thread or it is closed. The original question was beside IPO or other sport what other things are looked at in determining breeding.
You could have answered simply by explaining how you determined the parents of the litter you have now. You must have made some judgement calls like everyone else does when they pick a pair. 

Arguing every point gets really old.

Try Pedigree Database or Working Dog Forum they will be more than happy to argue with you, and they won't be nice.


----------



## Saphire

GatorDog said:


> I understand that and I'm not trying to argue. But just as quickly as you say there are things in a video of a dog from today that you don't like, I can see many things in a video of the old dogs and training that I don't like. It's a matter of personal opinions, and personally, I don't care much for a mule-like dog. That's fine too. No crime against it, and no point in arguing.


And here we have our answer. Honest and straight forward. Right, wrong or indifferent, it doesn't matter.

I wish this thread could become a sticky and in 10-15 years we come back to it and see where the choice to like today's sport dog has brought us.

I predict the GSD will be all but gone from serious working venues, the Mal will be heading down the same road. Question is, what is the next lucky breed to be destroyed?


----------



## Vandal

Well, I just said there were things in that dog I didn't like. I had never come across dogs like what came from that particular bloodline. It was a basic bloodbath trying to train those dogs.
They were not at all pleasant to deal with when it came to obedience. 

The point remains some breeders used that dog to bring or maintain hardness etc..... things that had less to do with the obedience side of the training/ dog.


----------



## martemchik

Why is my differing opinion an argument yet other people are allowed to have different opinions and it's not an argument? I'm just wondering. Doesn't it take two people to argue? So people are allowed to quote me, try to refute my point/opinion, and I just have to sit there and take it? Since it looks like the moment I respond, "I'm arguing." Just trying to figure out the huge bias and subjectivity of the majority of posters in regards to "how I post."

I'm open to people pointing out the assumption I made about that dog. Is the assumption that "newer ways MIGHT have worked and that no one can say for certain that him, and his thousands of progeny wouldn't have taken to the newer method"? If that's so, than sure, it's an assumption. But when all I'm doing is pointing out that you can't say anything with 100% certainty, it seems to make sense to me.

Jack's dad...I've also reported your post. Too personal, and we were asked to not get personal. No other breeders have brought up any of their litters. No outside posters have brought up other breeder's litters. Yet I have to put my own up here for all to judge? Nothing will be done about it anyways though, as it's clear the personal attacks on myself/my kennel are allowed on this forum. Other breeders, say one "questionable" thing and the post is gone within seconds. Also didn't realize you were granted power of "germanshepherds.com police." Are you the new gate keeper? You tell people which forums they are allowed to use and aren't? Feel free to point out where I have broken a posted forum rule in any of my posts. BTW...I get it, you defend Anne. But at least my posts in this thread are about the topic, and not just a random interjection of opinion that is completely off topic.


----------



## LaRen616

martemchik said:


> No other breeders have brought up any of their litters. No outside posters have brought up other breeder's litters. Yet I have to put my own up here for all to judge? Nothing will be done about it anyways though, as it's clear the personal attacks on myself/my kennel are allowed on this forum.


You have a kennel now? Was your male used as the sire? I thought Carma was Alexis' dog.


----------



## Vandal

Did I miss something? I don't believe I needed somebody to defend me and what I was saying. I was having an exchange with Alexis. 
I think this thread has pretty much run its course hopefully an admin will close it. There's just no point to continue.


----------



## carmspack

"newer ways MIGHT have worked and that no one can say for certain that him, and his thousands of progeny wouldn't have taken to the newer method"? 

the thing is , martemchik , I saw them , the first and second generation working close up at the club or brought to my place , worked by police learning about lines (to import wisely) -- Greif Lahntal was hugely popular at the time ! -- and by Owen Tober when he came on buying forays and worked some dogs , and by others . As I said they needed authority --- these were handler hard dogs . 
No way were they going to be bribed and lured by ball and treats . 
Breeding is always decision making .
You can't make good decisions without knowing what you have.


----------



## Jack's Dad

martemchik said:


> Jack's dad...I've also reported your post.


Report away Max it fits.

I actually think this is a good thread with lots of very good input and it is educational to many of us less experienced people. Much valuable information, Thanks to all.

As far as arguing, to anyone who doesn't recognize the difference between discussion of different views and arguing I really don't have anything to say.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

His X Rays?? He has excellent hips elbows and spine. His kids I train with also have the same.. If your talking about his long bite..I agree if only he would slow down a bit hahaha. They should breed them to be slower! 

Give me a break Gildo is no where in 5 gens of Bolle. If you go back a little farther you can see show lines..what does that prove? In the 5 gens leading up to him you see a selection for a certain type of dog. Troll, Asko, Franka, Larry, Nick and some of the Eqidius dogs.
Gildo was so strong he almost fell asleep in the phase C. I am sure if the helper had been allowed to lay the leather to him every minute or so he would have looked more awake. 
So he didn't have ball drive? That's great, not only would he have been bad for sport but also useless for LE work..
Finding mule dogs with low drive and high thresholds isn't hard. It's not a type of dog I venerate or want. They make good pets though! Maybe he produced some better dogs..i don't know what I am commenting on is his work which I consider less then ideal. 

Not only is Bolle in demand for sport breedings I have been told that he produces nice Police dogs and has the phenotype necessary for that work. That's from someone I trust that's met and bred to the dog. I'm sure he has covered a few low quality females too..


----------



## carmspack

oh yes he does have Gildo !

Nick Heiligenbosch - dam Ina Gard , bred 2-3 on Gildo . 
G Ina vom Haus Gard

Orla Schiffslache -- Arko Stoffelblick, brother to Alf and Arek - Gildo again . 

You have Nick Heileginbosch again on his dam's side bringing in Gildo again twice -- 

looks like Gildo to me

here's the pedigree http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=2126959-bolle-ja-na-ka


----------



## mycobraracr

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> So he didn't have ball drive? That's great, not only would he have been bad for sport but also useless for LE work.




I've seen you say this a few different times. Where did you come up with this? Ball drive has very little to do with LE work.


----------



## carmspack

ball drive has little to do with anything .

it is the modern way to engage and motivate, lure and bribe 
it says nothing about the instinct about an intrinsic , self rewarding drive
and that does include obedience , see all the threads about genetic obedience

tracking dogs were tested by their desire to track 

herding dogs weren't manipulated into herding desire by reward of a play session or ball play to connect the dots - the were tested for a genetic attraction to sheep 
German Shepherd Herding » The German Shepherd Herding Dog

some of these old farmer types were pretty sober and not about to play around with a dog -- the dogs mirrored this character - hard working, long hours , responsible , work till you drop

had a conversation with a German herder who was one of the last old style wanderschaferei 

I could just about picture him falling off his chair when trying to explain the ball drive as motivation -- he thought it was daft 

so now we have genetics for ball / prey drive at the expense of the true intrinsic drive for the work


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

mycobraracr said:


> I've seen you say this a few different times. Where did you come up with this? Ball drive has very little to do with LE work.



A dog that wont chase and hunt for a ball or other prey objects will not pass any LE testing.
Thats firsthand, second hand and thirdhand knowledge.

First question asked, whats his ball and hunt like?


----------

