# Breed Standard (Yes or No)



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

It seems like every time the breed standard is mentioned in a thread, someone inevitably gets very upset and defensive. This amazes me. I have never read a post where someone said that a non-standard GSD was not worthy of love. I have only read people saying that BREEDING should be done according to standard. 

The repeated defensiveness makes me wonder if people are just not understanding what is being said, or if they just disagree with there being a breed standard. This poll is to satisfy my curiousity.

Please vote for the choice that best represents your viewpoint or choose "Other" and explain below.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am an "other." 

I think that there should be a breed standard and people should do their best to stay within it, but if they have a dog that is exceptional in many ways, and only a minor variance, like 1/2 inch over or under standard height, one should not throw out the baby with the bath water. 

Of course there are standards, and each can be interpreted many ways. We will not ever all agree on how it should be interpreted.


----------



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

I think because this is a GSD forum passions run high. Doesn't matter whether the subject is breed standard, rescue, or dogs that bite.

In the real world outside the forum, the world of puppy mills, pet store dogs, some BYB's, a friend or relative who has a couple of dogs and want one litter, humane society dogs, rescue dogs nobody cares about this stuff. 

Most people want a dog for their family. They don't know about or care about breed standards.

I think there should be a breed standard


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Boy this is a tricky one. I chose _There SHOULD be a breed standard, but there needs to be different versions for different types or lines. Because not everyone wants a really really high drive dog but there are those that do.
_


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)

vat said:


> _Because not everyone wants a really really high drive dog but there are those that do._


Not that I am an expert on the breed standard but I don't think a really really high drive is part of the standard. The GSD should be able to do many different things with drives and a temperament within standard including sport or being a pet.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> I am an "other."
> I think that there should be a breed standard and people should do their best to stay within it, but if they have a dog that is exceptional in many ways, and only a minor variance, like 1/2 inch over or under standard height, one should not throw out the baby with the bath water.


Of course no dog is perfect. Every dog has faults, but ideally, we would choose a breeding partner that is strong where our dog is weak. So for example if your dog is 1/2 inch over the standard, but outstanding in every other aspect, you would breed to an equally outstanding bitch whose lines run toward the smaller size within standard.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

vat said:


> Boy this is a tricky one. I chose _There SHOULD be a breed standard, but there needs to be different versions for different types or lines. Because not everyone wants a really really high drive dog but there are those that do._


I don't think the standard mentions "really really high drive".

If you want two different standards, you would have to split the GSD into two different breeds, like they did with American/English Cockers, American/English Foxhounds, and so on.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

> _There SHOULD be a breed standard and breeders should breed to it (not intentionally breed outside it)_


I voted for the above.

I don't think I need to explain my take on this any further.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Freestep said:


> Of course no dog is perfect. Every dog has faults, but ideally, we would choose a breeding partner that is strong where our dog is weak. So for example if your dog is 1/2 inch over the standard, but outstanding in every other aspect, you would breed to an equally outstanding bitch whose lines run toward the smaller size within standard.


There is a danger in this. 

What I do is, where my dog is weak, I try to breed to a dog who is correct. So I would not breed an over-angulated dog to an under angulated dog. You would breed a dog with less angulation to a dog with proper angulation. 

I would not try to breed a bitch that is 1/2 inch too large to a dog on the lower end of the height range, I would breed to a dog who is as average as possible, but I think that I would be more likely to pick the right dog for the bitch, and check the height on the dog and if it falls within the ideal range, 24-26 inches (I know the German Standard is in centimeters and it is a little smaller), than it is a go. 

If you take a large bitch and breed her to a large dog, you might be breeding for over-sized dogs. If you have an awesome 29 inch dog, and you breed it to a 22 inch bitch, that just does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. What I have done is bred a 24.5 inch bitch to a 25.5 inch dog with good results.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> There is a danger in this.
> 
> What I do is, where my dog is weak, I try to breed to a dog who is correct. So I would not breed an over-angulated dog to an under angulated dog. You would breed a dog with less angulation to a dog with proper angulation.


Right. You wouldn't want to breed a bitch with an overbite to a male with an underbite, either... it just doesn't work that way. 



> If you have an awesome 29 inch dog, and you breed it to a 22 inch bitch, that just does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. What I have done is bred a 24.5 inch bitch to a 25.5 inch dog with good results.


I guess what I meant to say is, if my dog were too tall, I'd want a bitch whose bloodlines do not have a tendency to go oversize (or undersize), but right within the standard. If some of the dogs in the pedigree are on the smaller end of the standard, that would be just fine, but I'd have a bit of concern if many of the dogs were at the upper end of the standard.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Yes there should be a breed standard because if there wasn't, the breed would porbably be alot worse.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Freestep said:


> Of course no dog is perfect. Every dog has faults,


My thoughts exactly. I don't necessarily view a dog that is strong in many ways but 1/2" to tall as breeding out of the standard. The standard is more than just height and weight, and I personally don't think those aspects carry more priority than other aspects, such as temperament. No dog is perfect, so every dog is going to have at least one area where it is not perfectly to standard.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

You can breed two dogs that are of standard and might have a pup in the resulting litter that is not standard. Do you cull that puppy?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Freestep said:


> Right. You wouldn't want to breed a bitch with an overbite to a male with an underbite, either... it just doesn't work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I meant to say is, if my dog were too tall, I'd want a bitch whose bloodlines do not have a tendency to go oversize (or undersize), but right within the standard. If some of the dogs in the pedigree are on the smaller end of the standard, that would be just fine, but I'd have a bit of concern if many of the dogs were at the upper end of the standard.


I am trying to stay within the standard, but will not throw a dog out for only a little extra height, so long as the dog is balanced. If I breed that balanced dog to a balanced bitch who is within the standard (wherever she lands within it) I will feel ok. In my opinion, height is one up from color, so long as you are not trying to breed giants. Temperament, health, balance, and so much more are higher on my priority list. coat length, color, height within reason are not going to keep me awake nights.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lilie said:


> You can breed two dogs that are of standard and might have a pup in the resulting litter that is not standard. Do you cull that puppy?


Yupp, when they come out you can tell that they will be too large, too small, too angulated, a tooth missing, soft ears, and you can pop them right in the freezer.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Lilie said:


> You can breed two dogs that are of standard and might have a pup in the resulting litter that is not standard. Do you cull that puppy?


Of course not. But instead of keeping it back to breed down the line (as a breeder), you place it in a wonderful loving home, wish it a long, healthy life, and re-assess your breeding dogs to see if you should continue breeding them if they keep producing out of standard dogs.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Lilie said:


> You can breed two dogs that are of standard and might have a pup in the resulting litter that is not standard. Do you cull that puppy?


Just curious why you asked this question. I am not seeing the connection. Are you saying that is intentionally breeding outside the standard? Cause that is not what I meant to imply with the question. I am talking about people who intentionally breed to get traits that are outside the standard either physical or temperament.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

selzer said:


> Yupp, when they come out you can tell that they will be too large, too small, too angulated, a tooth missing, soft ears, and you can pop them right in the freezer.


 
:headbang:


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lilie, I do not think decent breeders do much culling anymore. Perhaps they should, but most of us do not have the heart for it. But at age two, the only culling you do, is by not adding the dog to your breeding stock. 

So yes, if you breed a 23.5 bitch to a 25.5 dog and you have a 29 inch pup, I would probably not breed that dog -- I see that is over-sized. Kind of embarrassing, really, but I would not kill it.

cull = kill


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Ruthie said:


> :headbang:


Ruth, settle down, it was SO ridiculous it CANNOT be believed.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

selzer said:


> Ruth, settle down, it was SO ridiculous it CANNOT be believed.


Exactly... so ridiculous... sadly people think that if you care about a GSD being bred to standard that this is what you think.

I got that you were being sarcastic. The response was because I was imagining how this will turn the conversation and all it could make me think of is banging my head against the wall.


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

selzer said:


> There is a danger in this.
> 
> What I do is, where my dog is weak, I try to breed to a dog who is correct. So I would not breed an over-angulated dog to an under angulated dog. You would breed a dog with less angulation to a dog with proper angulation.
> 
> ...


Wait... Unless you are looking at a different standard than me, a 22 inch bitch is well within standard, and a 24.5 inch bitch almost an inch over.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

I guess since I am not a breeder and know nothing of genetics maybe I should not have voted. As a breeder would you take a dog that was not breed standard exactly and breed it to one that was because the dog had a trait that you needed to strengthen in your line? Do I make sense?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Ruthie said:


> Just curious why you asked this question. I am not seeing the connection. Are you saying that is intentionally breeding outside the standard? Cause that is not what I meant to imply with the question. I am talking about people who intentionally breed to get traits that are outside the standard either physical or temperament.


Remember that entertaining the GSD breed standard is new to me, therefore it was a serious question. 

If a breeder is attempting to stay within breed standards and they have a pup that between 6-8 weeks they see that the pup is not within breed standards..serious over/underbite, or even is a long coat, or is a blue or something that is not within the standards - would a breeder cull that pup in an effort to hide the flaw within their breeding program?


----------



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

I'm not a breeder and am pretty much lost in the whole genetics discussions.

I do however want to ask some of the breeders on the forum.

Don't you just keep select dogs that are to the standard as you see it for breeding?

Don't the vast majority of dogs go to homes or other pursuits other than breeding?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

selzer said:


> So yes, if you breed a 23.5 bitch to a 25.5 dog and you have a 29 inch pup, I would probably not breed that dog -- I see that is over-sized.


What if the problem is not the result of the breeding but the dogs that were originally bred? How do you know the resulting 29" dog is the one that needs to be culled (spayed and placed) and not one or both of the 23.5 and 25.5 dogs?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Lilie, these days dogs are "culled" by placing them in non-breeding homes with a spay/neuter contract and/or limited registration. They are not killed but removed from the gene pool because they will not breed.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Lilie said:


> If a breeder is attempting to stay within breed standards and they have a pup that between 6-8 weeks they see that the pup is not within breed standards..serious over/underbite, or even is a long coat, or is a blue or something that is not within the standards - would a breeder cull that pup in an effort to hide the flaw within their breeding program?


I certainly hope they would not, but I'm sure it happens.

Most ethical breeders will place a non-standard pup in a loving pet home with a spay/neuter contract, and not try to hide anything. It is important to the breed as a whole when undesireable recessive traits are revealed and traced. In this way we can be careful not to double up on known carriers of such traits. 

If, for example, a bitch throws a liver puppy, you would want to know which other bloodlines may carry the liver gene so that they can be avoided in future breedings. If breeders simply execute a coverup, this information can never be known. This is why it's so important for breeders to be honest about what their dogs may carry, and perform due diligence in selecting a breeding partner. If this information is not out in the open, it does the breed a disservice.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Lilie said:


> Remember that entertaining the GSD breed standard is new to me, therefore it was a serious question.
> 
> If a breeder is attempting to stay within breed standards and they have a pup that between 6-8 weeks they see that the pup is not within breed standards..serious over/underbite, or even is a long coat, or is a blue or something that is not within the standards - would a breeder cull that pup in an effort to hide the flaw within their breeding program?


Thank you for explaining what you meant.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

One small thing to keep in mind when selecting breeding partners (that I haven't seen anyone mention, although I might have missed it) is this!

It really doesn't mean anything, except to the appearance of the dogs that are being bred, what the partners LOOK like!

What is IMPORTANT to breeding selection is the *genotype* of the dogs - that is, what genes do they carry and can thus pass on to their puppies. 

Then the second important thing is *how well do the male/female genes match *to produce whatever the breeder is looking for (assume that this would match the GSD standard). 

So even if a dog has great shoulder structure or great temperament or ... - unless he/she can pass it on to their progeny it would be useless to match that dog with another good dog that is missing a little in either area.

So you could potentially breed to a dog with a major fault SO LONG as the dog doesn't pass it along to pups! (not likely but certainly possible and it has happened).


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

Look...breeding has never been as simple as A + B = C....and shouldn't be.
It *should* be hard work. 
The "standard" is a blue print for the breed...(all breeds).
When a person decides that they wish to participate in the reproduction of a specific breed....they should educate themselves to the "breed standard" for that breed. The standard consists of character traits as well as physical traits.
To breed... knowingly or intentionally *outside* the breed standard, can be detrimental to the breed as a whole and in it's future.

I do not believe in "throwing the baby out with the bath water"...but exceptions should be few...not consistent.
This breed needs enthusiasts to keep it as a "whole"....from temperament to structure.
JMO (as a breeder & enthusiast).


----------



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

I'll try asking a different way. 

What percentage of a breeders dogs (regardless of their end use) wind up being good enough to actually want to use for breeding.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Hunter Jack said:


> I'll try asking a different way.
> 
> What percentage of a breeders dogs (regardless of their end use) wind up being good enough to actually want to use for breeding.


I like this question and don't want it to get lost in this poll thread. I am going to start a new thread in the breeding section.

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...percentage-dogs-breed-worthy.html#post2185540


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

robinhuerta said:


> Look...breeding has never been as simple as A + B = C....and shouldn't be.
> It *should* be hard work.
> The "standard" is a blue print for the breed...(all breeds).
> When a person decides that they wish to participate in the reproduction of a specific breed....they should educate themselves to the "breed standard" for that breed. The standard consists of character traits as well as physical traits.
> ...


I am not a breeder, but this sure makes sense to me! :thumbup:


----------



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

Thank you.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Other: There should be a breed standard, but breeders should look at the whole picture and not at every statement for separate. 

By example, soft ears may be out of standard, but a smart breeder may chose to breed that dog for other reasons and will know how to pick a female lines that brings strenght to ears. 

But over everything, more of something good doesn't make better.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Lilie said:


> If a breeder is attempting to stay within breed standards and they have a pup that between 6-8 weeks they see that the pup is not within breed standards..serious over/underbite, or even is a long coat, or is a blue or something that is not within the standards - would a breeder cull that pup in an effort to hide the flaw within their breeding program?


This is what spay/neuter contracts are for. Some culling in the traditional sense (killing) may still happen, but is pretty rare these days compared to in the past. Especially in the US. It is more common in Europe. Instead dogs are culled from the breeding population by being placed in homes where they will never be bred.

Disqualifications like coat, color, some physical deformaties, and a very small list of health problems are evident in early pups. But most things that would make a dog not breeding quality are not obvious at a young age. The pup needs to be grown out first.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

BR870 said:


> Wait... Unless you are looking at a different standard than me, a 22 inch bitch is well within standard, and a 24.5 inch bitch almost an inch over.


Yupp, looking at a different standard than you are.  

From the AKC standard: "The desired _height_ for males at the top of the highest point of the shoulder blade is 24 to 26 inches; and for bitches, 22 to 24 inches."

And this is not a disqualifying fault. It is desired.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lilie said:


> Remember that entertaining the GSD breed standard is new to me, therefore it was a serious question.
> 
> If a breeder is attempting to stay within breed standards and they have a pup that between 6-8 weeks they see that the pup is not within breed standards..serious over/underbite, or even is a long coat, or is a blue or something that is not within the standards - would a breeder cull that pup in an effort to hide the flaw within their breeding program?


I am sure that there are beasts in any field, in any venue, and this one has its population represented, but it is terribly insulting to think that the majority of breeders would kill a puppy because of its coat color, length, a problem with dentition. 

And yet the overall feel for people who charge MONEY for puppies, who consider it a sale, and not an adoption, is so low that people BELIEVE we would MURDER a healthy puppy for having been born with a less than desirable color or trait. 

Have you Lilie ever worked over a puppy to get it to breathe that very first time. Have you held a day-old puppy on your skin under your chin and felt the little hear beat and the small toenails? Have you let a new pup suck on your finger? Have you watched young puppies learn to walk, and play, and fight, and eat? 

 

Good breeders will discount a pup with a cosmetic flaw/trait and sell on a limited registration.

Other breeders will on occasion use the liver or blue or white to sell the pup as rare or unique. 

Killing a puppy so no one knows the dog throws whatever flaw, is only going to buy you a little time. The first person who breeds to your dog and gets a problem is going to talk about it. It will get around and you will lose face. So no way does the cost outweigh the benefits. I do not know if a show person/breeder would pass on a litter with a blue pup in the litter. They might. I think if the litter has the bloodlines they are looking for, that a blue was produced, would not be the end of the world to them. Hard to say. The hard-core show people are interesting, but not beasts.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Selzer - (I didn't want to copy your quote, it would take up too much room.)

I have a BF who has worked as a vet tech for 35 years. She tells me of stories of breeders who bring in puppies to cull because they aren't the correct color (Great Danes) or because they've bred two Aussie merles together and gotten a litter of six beautiful merle aussie babies, but the seventh has the double merle gene and is white or has a white head so that puppy is culled. Blue merle aussies bring more money then tri colored ones. Tiny tea cup designer dogs who were born with out the roof of their mouths, so they are culled. 

I will add that my BF worked for a small private vet for many years who would not engage in such practice. When he retired, she left and is now working for a larger clinic with several vets. Those vets to not question their client's breeding standards and only follow the requests of the client. She is sickened and sadden by the entire ordeal. 

I did not intend to direct my question as a practice utilized by the majority of breeders. And I'm not sure how I could have restated my post to avoid the misunderstanding. If you feel an apology is in order Selzer, then I extend an apology to you alone.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Not all of those culls you mentioned are for aesthetic reasons or to "hide something". Many breeds have serious health issues associated with certain colors, including double merle and certain forms of lethal and non-lethal white. Cleft pallate is a developmental defect that can lead to severe problems and death. When health is severely compromised with these things, it is far better for the breeder to humanely euthanize the pup at a young age than to allow it to suffer or place it with some unsuspecting owner and have them face that decision shortly down the road. 

I'd suspect many of those vets accused of not caring and just following their client's request are well aware of these things too and that impacts their willingness to do it.


----------



## DanielleOttoMom (May 11, 2010)

_There SHOULD be a breed standard, but there needs to be different versions for different types or lines_ 

I agree with this. That is my 2 cents.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have never had a cleft palet in a dog, but I think that it is common to euthanize such a pup as they will not be able to eat properly. I would cull a puppy that was born with a deformity like missing the front legs -- I know that has happened and people let the pup live, but I think I would put the dog down. I hope I will never have to make such a decision. 

But culling healthy puppies -- no way, and certainly not at six or eight weeks old.


----------

