# Thoughts on this statement...



## amjrchamberlain (Mar 8, 2005)

I was reading an article in a magazine and read a statement that titles should not be considered as important (in determining if a stud is breeding material) because the titles are "fluff" to sell puppies, "not to produce a quality litter." 

If you get the magazine, you'll best be able to tell me -am I misunderstanding this statement? I was a little taken aback, because one of the criteria we tell new prospective owners to use to find reputable breeders is that the parents to the litter have titles in SOME endeavor. Of course I understand that titles are not the end-all or be-all of breeding, but it was that they are referred to as "fluff" that just got me. LOL If by quality litter one means structural quality, that leaves out temperament quality and the needed stability that GSDs should have (which the titles help assure a puppy buyer of). Atleast, that is my train of thought. 

Just curious if you found it odd or if I misunderstood the statement?


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

I don't know which magazine you're talking about, but would it be possible for you to post the passage (sentence or paragraph) that is from so people can see it in context? (People like me, who don't get the magazine.)

I always thought of titles as a way to prove the breeding quality of a dog. Titles in conformation prove that the dog meets the breed standard as it is written down. Titles in any kind of work prove the working ability and temperament of the dog.


----------



## amjrchamberlain (Mar 8, 2005)

That's what I thought. I don't want to ruffle feathers, but I'll post the sentence in full. Admin - if it is a problem, please feel free to delete the thread.









"With the exception of Register of Merit, do not consider titles the dog has acheived, these are fluff used to sell resulting puppies, not produce a quality litter."

The article goes on to mention breed worthy thoughts regarding complementary and compensatory characteristics, pedigree evaluation, hip/elbow/health info, etc and was a good article overall. It was just that statement that struck me as odd and I wondered if a new person (to the GSD breed or to purebred dogs overall) were to read that if they would think that all the other articles telling them to choose reputable breeders who do health certifications and TITLE (etc) are just trying to sell them something they don't need in a puppy? Ya know?


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Titles CAN be fluff if they're not truly earned (or bought under the table) or if they don't fully prove a dog's character. On Westminster, it's very sad to see dogs with the title of Champion of Record shrink away from the judge, acting like the Grim Reaper is about to pick them up and toss them in a blender. It was also very sad to see supposed SchH III dogs completely ignore the helper and the sleeve, exhibiting all the signs of stress or even dogs that barely mouthed the sleeve earn a "pronounced" in protection. 

A title on a dog earned by a hardworking handler-dog team is NOT fluff if the handler and dog worked together every step of the way and the handler uses what has been learned through the process to make a sound breeding decision, be it show or work. Some of those show dogs make it crystal clear that they're stable and happy and full of 'tude even though a show title alone really isn't enough. Here is where having a really good breeder means everything. 

I wonder if the writer of the article has generalized "fluff" to ALL titles, regardless?



> Quote:Titles in conformation prove that the dog meets the breed standard as it is written down


Not always, unfortunately....


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

I think I read that article too...


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

Everyone has an opinion, and too often express it as if their writing was divinely inspired and should be held as gospel.

But then again, their is always somebody eager to drink the kool-aid because they bought the air of the prophet they think they heard.

Take it all with a grain of salt!


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

Titles are there to prove the dog is worthy of reproducing (in theory). Conformation titles demonstrate that a dog is close to meeting the breed standard (there is no dog that meets it 100%). Performance titles prove that a working dog is able to work, has decent temperament, etc.

Granted, this is an ideal view. Dogs can have titles without really earning them. And a good trainer can train a not-so-great dog to get titles. Researching the pedigree is important as well. Knowing the dog's family history is vital to understanding what genetics you are playing with (health, temperament, etc.). 

IMHO, titles are not 'fluff.' They are an 'unbiased' view of a dog. As much as it's important to talk with the breeder about their dogs, it's just as important to have a third party's opinion on the dogs as well. 

Titles aren't the be-all end-all, however. There is so much involved in selecting a dog from a breeder.

JMHO.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

It's funny how whenever people make statements to the effect that titles aren't worth anything, 99.9% of the time the person speaking is someone who has never titled a dog.

People who have done it have experienced the immense wealth of knowledge they gained about their dog through the training and titling process and come to the realization that much of what they learned never could have been learned any other way, least of all just hanging out with their dog at home. So they have a very different view and you won't hear those who have titled dogs make such statements because they KNOW better... not just because someone told them titles are important, but because they've experienced it themselves. 

Of course, I'm talking performance/training titles, not conformation ones here.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Depends on the titles I guess. Personally I think 75% of them or so ARE fluff. For example CD, CDX, RN-RE, CGC, TT, HIT/HIC, most agility titles except for a MACH or something equivalent in another venue, all the titles my dogs have lol. Not that I think it's necessarily easy to get those titles and that they don't deserve congrats, but that for me those just don't say enough about the dog's drive, temperament, and working ability to evaluate a dog for _breeding_.


----------



## GranvilleGSD (Mar 28, 2007)

I read the article too. It was in the GSDCA Review, and the article was about choosing the right stud dog for your bitch. I think the statement was meant that titles are something to consider when choosing a mate, however you need to look at the whole picture and that titles are not always indicators of what will be produced by the mating. IMO it was saying do not choose a stud dog only because he is a CH or a Sch3 or a VA, etc.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

Great post Lies. 
Sure it is nice for a dog to have those titles, it at least shows that the owner is doing something with their dog. But with a lot of them, just about ANY dog can get them. And even a dog with a TERRIBLE temperment can do well with the right handler. I have a Standard Schnauzer whose LOWEST score in the Novice A class was a 198 and we took High In Trial at one show. But she would have been a terrible breeding dog. 

As far as I am concerned, the HIC and HIT aren't reallty "titles" either. Though some folks make it out that way.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: shepherdmom12I read the article too. It was in the GSDCA Review, and the article was about choosing the right stud dog for your bitch. I think the statement was meant that titles are something to consider when choosing a mate, however you need to look at the whole picture and that titles are not always indicators of what will be produced by the mating. IMO it was saying do not choose a stud dog only because he is a CH or a Sch3 or a VA, etc.


If that's the case, I could agree with that too. You can't just combine two dogs that *look* correct (or however you want) and have the titles you want, you have to carefully consider how the bitch can improve on the male and vice versa. Maybe a SchH1 bitch bred to a male working police dog with NO titles produces better than two V-rated SchH3 dogs.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I think people who tend to say "my dog has X title and isn't breed worthy" or "my dog has Y temperament fault and still got X title" and use that as evidence that titles aren't important on breeding stock are sort of missing the point. It's not about the title, it's about the learning process. 

Even just a CD takes a good deal of work and is going to expose a lot about the dog's strengths and weaknesses. The more stringent and varied the titles, the more effort it takes to get them, the more the dog is tested and stressed, and thus the more is learned about the dog.

I agree that titles alone do not make a dog breedworthy. And of course no breeder should pick a mate just based on the letters before and after it's name. 

But if the dog has (legitimately earned) titles, that title means that someone, somewhere has a pretty good idea IF the dog is breedworthy. That's the whole point really. Titles show that someone knows that dog pretty well and thus can make a much more educated decision about the dog's breedworthiness and what sort of mate it should be bred to.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

^ OK I can agree with that. I just see so many people (not here necessarily) that have the attitude like "Oh I want to breed my dog so bad, I've got to get all her titles!" like they've already decided they're going to breed the dog and don't seem to understand the concept of training and trailing the dog. There's a lady at my club like that, she has this dog and I have no idea if it's breeding quality b/c I know little about the breed, but I overheard her saying stuff like "I'm going to breed him, I just need to put a few titles on him..." and she seems obsessed with having the dog get everything right and perfect. No amount of titles can make up for certain faults or substitute the right experience and knowledge needed to properly breed dogs.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:^ OK I can agree with that. I just see so many people (not here necessarily) that have the attitude like "Oh I want to breed my dog so bad, I've got to get all her titles!" like they've already decided they're going to breed the dog and don't seem to understand the concept of training and trailing the dog. There's a lady at my club like that, she has this dog and I have no idea if it's breeding quality b/c I know little about the breed, but I overheard her saying stuff like "I'm going to breed him, I just need to put a few titles on him..." and she seems obsessed with having the dog get everything right and perfect. No amount of titles can make up for certain faults or substitute the right experience and knowledge needed to properly breed dogs.


A very valid point and rather common if you ask me.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildI think people who tend to say "my dog has X title and isn't breed worthy" or "my dog has Y temperament fault and still got X title" and use that as evidence that titles aren't important on breeding stock are sort of missing the point. It's not about the title, it's about the learning process.
> 
> Even just a CD takes a good deal of work and is going to expose a lot about the dog's strengths and weaknesses. The more stringent and varied the titles, the more effort it takes to get them, the more the dog is tested and stressed, and thus the more is learned about the dog.


I hope that wasn't the message that my post sent because that was NOT the intent.

What I ment was that we all know that there are folks out there that take titles as the "be all, end all". They believe that just because a dog has SOME SORT of title AFTER it's name, that must mean that it has a good/correct "temperment". And we all know that this is NOT the case. I don't care if it is a CD or a SchH3. Titles alone do NOT "guarantee" that a dog has the correct temeperment for the breed. (Which is the same thing others have already said.)


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje^ OK I can agree with that. I just see so many people (not here necessarily) that have the attitude like "Oh I want to breed my dog so bad, I've got to get all her titles!" like they've already decided they're going to breed the dog and don't seem to understand the concept of training and trailing the dog. There's a lady at my club like that, she has this dog and I have no idea if it's breeding quality b/c I know little about the breed, but I overheard her saying stuff like "I'm going to breed him, I just need to put a few titles on him..." and she seems obsessed with having the dog get everything right and perfect. No amount of titles can make up for certain faults or substitute the right experience and knowledge needed to properly breed dogs.


Very true. That happens a lot. Many people do focus too much on the letters and miss out on the learning experience entirely. Or put blinders on and don't pay attention to what they learned.

But that's not the fault of the titling process, but the fault of the people. That's all I'm saying. Just because some titles aren't earned and thus are meaningless, or some people miss the whole point, or some people ignore what the titles told them about their dog because they're so determined to breed anyway, doesn't invalidate the titling process or mean that titles are just "Fluff".

The process itself, when done properly, does provide a lot of knowledge about the dog. But it's up to the people to decide if they're going to pay any attention to it or put it to good use.

Beyond a means to learn about the individual dog, it's also a great way to learn about dogs/training/temperament/the breed in general. Obejective evaluations of the dog, and comparing the dog to others both in training and trials, is very educational. And while some still miss the point and don't want to or can't be educated, other times that can serve as a wake up call. 

I've encountered many people like the woman Lies describes, but have also encountered a few who started out that way and then over time changed their ways and saw the light about what titling is really about... something that probably never would have happened if they hadn't gotten involved in pursuing those titles to begin with.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Well....no one hates saying this more than I do but I don't see how anything, including SchH, is doing alot as far as preserving the temperament of the GSD. When you talk about a title and then have to add all the footnotes i.e "honest title" "not bought under the table" etc etc etc, you sure do have to stop and consider just how much worth a SchH title has left. The breed has changed quite a bit, both the show and the working lines, and so has SchH. The really valuable breeding dogs would only be recognized by a few who watch it anymore. People have become accustomed to seeing GSDs behave in a less than GSD fashion and SchH,( the way it is done now), has helped to distort that view. 

I have done it long enough to see the difference in the dogs. Maybe it is stupid to even write this here since I expect that many will disagree based on what they have not seen. In some ways things are better, in that the training is more humane. While I am not condoning rough treatment, I can tell you that what has happened with the training methods has taken much of the test out of SchH. People have found ways to remove the stress from training which results in a happier looking dogs. However, there always was a way to achieve this without making it so much about balls and treats. Because people did not master that side of things, we now know less about how well a dog will handle a correction or stress coming from the handler. In protection, again, people have found ways to remove the stress from training which allows the dogs to bite full and look enthusiastic when perhaps, under the older training methods and trials, ( where the dogs looked at the helper much differently ), they would not have been so highly thought of. You cannot test courage when there is no threat, period.
The other side of it is training that teaches the dog to find security in the full grip. Add in the fact that many people do not know what they are looking at as far as the behaviors a dog displays during the routine and SchH means less and less. Nope, no easy answer for any of this but titles unfortunately, are not proving much anymore either. I see way too many people getting excited by dogs who are a bit too nervy for my taste. Nerves are what makes a GSD and while many people like to talk about that, I have not met many people who really understand what that is. Unfortunately, this includes the judges and that is just one more footnote to be added when we talk about titles.
From the USA web site:
"One of the problems that has developed over the past few years, is the rating of “excellent” is given far too often. This seems to be more common as it relates to dogs of less character and genetics. In statistics gathered through Europe, dogs are given an “excellent” rating about 40% of the time. As compared to 10 plus years ago the number was 4% to 10%. Part of this is judges are not following the guidelines, not understanding the rules, and not having a clear understanding of character, temperament and genetics. All dogs, no matter what the breed, no matter of breed versus show, must be evaluated the same."

Good luck fixing that. There is no longer the willingness to breed dogs with the character they used to have. Probably would not do as well in SchH the way it is judged now and black and red dogs are what many prefer. They will argue you do not need a dog with aggression or protective instincts since there is a liability in that in today's world and who needs it? We can call the police if we need protection. Well, today's world doesn't have alot to do with what the standard says. I am sure they will get around to removing the words about courage , hardness and fighting drive pretty soon. SchH no longer requires the dogs to display those characteristics either, so, it is not doing much to promote the standard , which again, is very unfortunate. SchH used to be a pretty brilliant test of a dog's character. Some of the things that people came up with years and years ago just don't need "improvement", they just need to be maintained and protected but that doesn't happen too often in today's world..


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Great post, Anne, no matter how sad it makes me to read it.


----------



## nanrao (Nov 27, 2002)

Anne,

As always, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. What you say seems so obvious, at least to me, but that is not what I see around me. Just the other day, a year old dog was being written off because "he showed zero intensity". The other thing that you talk about - nerve strength - also hit home. It seems as if dogs with higher thresholds are written off way too early either because it is too much work for the helper or because the helper simply does not know how to work with a dog like that. I have also had a helper argue with me about how aggression is completely unnecessary for the sport - it is a point game after all and there is no need for aggression. Isn't switching drives important?? 
I also wanted to say that having had the pleasure of reading and re reading all your posts through the years, what you say seems so common sense and I'm rather surprised that people don't get it and someone actually has to spell it out. Most of my questions get answered just going through your posts. Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge.

Nandini


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Yup, I have also had the "aggression" discussion with a "sport" person. But, this is a whole different topic.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Anne, brilliant post, if very depressing.



> Quote:I have also had a helper argue with me about how aggression is completely unnecessary for the sport


Perhaps for the SPORT, but the breed must have aggression or it is simply not a GSD. 

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


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

How about starting a new topic, Diana?


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=944636&page=0#Post944636

Good idea. Looking forward to the responses.


----------

