# German Shepherds- Whay have they ruined them?



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

*German Shepherds- Why have they ruined them?*

I know we have GSD people on this board, so maybe they can explain, why we reward conformation that lends itself towards unsoundness.

If you watch this video, you can see these dogs are not sound, and could not do the work they were originally bred to do, yet are winning at top shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV7elIy_Aoo
(The GSD starts about 40 sec into the video).


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Whose got the popcorn?


----------



## Damon'sMom (Aug 2, 2011)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Whose got the popcorn?


op2: I do. Want some? lol

That video just makes me feel sad. 

EDIT: I grew up with a German Shepherd named Sam, and my neighbor had one named Delilah. They were both working lines and I much prefer that look myself. That man in the video saying that they are more "correct in standard" is only talking about the AKC standard not in what they were bred for. I would never use a Show line shepherd for herding because of how unstable their hind legs are (which is what Sam and Delilah were used for).






ChaosIsAWeim said:


> That video took the worst of the worst and displayed it as the norm.


EDIT: It will not let me post in anther post....If I double post or something sorry. 
Yes I understand that. I don't mind a slight slope (Sam had it a bit), but I would not work a dog (like in that video) with such a severe slope in the fields with me. Their hind legs look way too unstable for my taste. Just my opinion.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Damon'sMom said:


> op2: I do. What some? lol
> 
> That video just makes me feel sad.
> I grew up with a German Shepherd named Sam, and my neighbor had one named Delilah. They were both working lines and I much prefer that look myself. That man in the video saying that they are more "correct in standard" is only talking about the AKC standard not in what they were bred for.


That video took the worst of the worst and displayed it as the norm.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> That video took the worst of the worst and displayed it as the norm.


Yep. Pedigree Dogs Exposed has been discussed here many a time.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Yep. Pedigree Dogs Exposed has been discussed here many a time.


Yep, and that is why I asked for the popcorn, lol.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Well, damn. Guess I better go return mine.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

spotted nikes - I do want you to know that I'm not making fun of you, just amused by this repeatedly beaten topic. 

The German Shepherd Dog is an incredible breed. It is a shame you want to base your opinion of the fate of the breed on one extremely biased video.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Equinox said:


> spotted nikes - I do want you to know that I'm not making fun of you, just amused by this repeatedly beaten topic.
> 
> The German Shepherd Dog is an incredible breed. It is a shame you want to base your opinion of the fate of the breed on one extremely biased video.


I've met many GSD's in my life. The worst thing I see with them are poor temperaments, which makes me wonder why JQP rewards crappy breeders who breed poorly tempered dogs with nerve-bags by continuing to buy from the guy who wants to make a buck breeding guard dawgs.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I find it to be a shame, honestly, that the OP has been here for three years, and has not read the MANY responses to this topic in that time :-/


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I've never seen this topic brought up (I know I haven't been here for long, but I was on another dog forum for a few years). Is there a thread lying around here that I'm missing?
Interestingly, while I was walking Soro the other day I saw four GSDs on the trail along with some other dogs (I assumed it was a dog walking event or something) and all of walked funny and had that 'show dog' stance. I've only seen one anatomically sound GSD in my life and the other GSD looking dogs that were well proportioned were mixes, according to their owners. Based on my limited experience this might not mean much, but in my mind GSDs are the show dog ones shown in this video. I'd love to be proven wrong!


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

spotted nikes -- Probably best to use something besides Pedigree Dogs Exposed since as others have said it has been beaten to death many times with the usual resolution.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I'm going to answer this very simply.

Show GSDs are not ruining the breed, there are lots of show bred GSDs of various lines that are perfectly healthy and sound. It's the unethical breeders breeding for money and pumping out puppies without caring about their health and a few breeders (very few) breeders breeding for such extremes for whatever reason whether it's to win in a show or for money ruining the breed. Mostly it's like every breed out there, BYBs and puppy mills and people trying to make money ruining the breed, causing extremely nervous dogs, aggressive dogs, unsound dogs, etc. It happens in every single breed really. It's not any better with mutts (designer dog breeders).


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> I'm going to answer this very simply.
> 
> Show GSDs are not ruining the breed, there are lots of show bred GSDs of various lines that are perfectly healthy and sound. It's the unethical breeders breeding for money and pumping out puppies without caring about their health and a few breeders (very few) breeders breeding for such extremes for whatever reason whether it's to win in a show or for money ruining the breed. Mostly it's like every breed out there, BYBs and puppy mills and people trying to make money ruining the breed, causing extremely nervous dogs, aggressive dogs, unsound dogs, etc. It happens in every single breed really. It's not any better with mutts (designer dog breeders).


I take it that the video posted is not a reputable representation, but if this is the case then why are these dogs winning titles? Or, maybe I've been blindsided by the video, but what I got from it was: These are show bred GSDs, at competitions like Crufts (which I thought was prestigious), and these GSDs are winning ribbons, indicating the judges approve of their conformation.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I too would like to know why this has been brought up again. A site search brings up three different threads about GSDs and "Pedigree dogs Exposed" which is one of the worst and most biased documentaries out there...


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> I too would like to know why this has been brought up again. A site search brings up three different threads about GSDs and "Pedigree dogs Exposed" which is one of the worst and most biased documentaries out there...


I just did a search and skimmed the threads you mentioned... Certainly learned a lot in the last five minutes, but I'm still not understanding how these dogs, if they're not representative of breeders as a whole, and if they're the worst examples just chosen for the sake of televised drama... are still winning ribbons?

Also, why not just lock this thread if it's so painfully repetitive? :/
I feel like the topics of pitbulls or training methods have been beaten to death at least twice as much but somehow a new discussion comes up every time. I have nothing against it, because people can choose to ignore or respond as they'd like. But I do feel a bit naive now asking these questions because I've only seen this for the first time, while everyone else is virtually sighing in annoyance as it's all been said before.


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Canyx said:


> I take it that the video posted is not a reputable representation, but if this is the case then why are these dogs winning titles? Or, maybe I've been blindsided by the video, but what I got from it was: These are show bred GSDs, at competitions like Crufts (which I thought was prestigious), and these GSDs are winning ribbons, indicating the judges approve of their conformation.


I have watched the entire program that this clip is from. It goes on to talk about many other breeds that have serious debilitating deformities that have been selectively bred into them albeit inadvertently in the most part. One example is the Cavalier King Charles (from memory) who's adorable big brown eyes appear the way the do because the brain has evolved to a size that the skull has not caught up to and is therefore pushing the eyes forward as well as putting outward pressure in every other direction, many of these dogs spend their lives in agony yet they are classed by Show Dog circles Kennel Clubs to be "Anatomically Correct." 

Terry Hannan in the clip says these exact words about the German Shepard;
"The old fashioned UK type of dog or the working dog, you will never see them in a show room because anatomically they're not correct."
What he classes as anatomically correct are these poor selectively bred dogs suffering from weak hind quarters that not in all, but in many, have excruciating difficulty in simply walking.
My opinion is Terry Hannan is not Psychologically Correct. 
In a Survival of the Fittest situation the old fashioned working dog will be the clear winner.

Selective breeding is just another example of humans playing god and getting it wrong.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I take it that the video posted is not a reputable representation, but if this is the case then why are these dogs winning titles?


There are so many freaking things wrong with the presentation of the video as it is.

Dogs are pacing, dogs are straining against the lead, handlers are screwing their dogs up. None of the dogs in that video are my cup of tea, but it's not hard to make a good dog look like CRAP through shoddy handling!

Strauss is tightly ligamented....his hocks are going to wobble too if I string him up and don't just let him move. Mirada's rear is a little weak, due to loose ligaments, but I can make her look a zillion times worse by holding her up and her digging in to move forward.

You know why they win?

#1 It's what the judges are used to
#2 Politics
#3 People interpreting the standard in various ways
#4 Nobody else brings the judges ANYTHING ELSE with any sort of consistency

Don't expect change if you're not willing to lose for awhile.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Xeph said:


> You know why they win?
> 
> #1 It's what the judges are used to
> #2 Politics
> ...


Ahhhh, thanks


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

> German Shepherds- Why have they ruined them?


Meaningful debate does not start by assuming the other side hates dogs and enjoys causing them pain.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'd also like to add that the dogs shown were entirely West German show lines. There were no "Alsatians" (the English name for the GSD), no American dogs, and no Euro working line shows.

It's a pathetic sampling a best.

GSDs SHOULD have angles. They should not have exaggerated angles, they should not have curvy toplines. Dogs with crap for temperament shouldn't happen. But all of the above does exist, and IS rewarded. Is it rewarded under some good judges? NO! But people don't know where to look, or what they're looking at. They follow along blindly, and pity the dogs (who, by the way, aren't in any pain).


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Structurally correct:









Structurally correct:









Structurally correct:


















Structurally correct:
http://www.brightmeadowgsd.com/pb/wp_a6bb29b7/images/img32854ac5088517909.jpg


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Frankly if you don't like the way a breed has developed, don't get into that breed, find one you like the structure/history/temperament/drive/ appearance of better. Honestly there's a breed for everyone out there, even if that breed is of the stuffed toy variety.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Canyx said:


> Also, why not just lock this thread if it's so painfully repetitive? :/


Because thread locking is reserved for out of control arguments and ill advised threads in the health section when they should be at the vets office.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Frankly if you don't like the way a breed has developed, don't get into that breed, find one you like the structure/history/temperament/drive/ appearance of better. Honestly there's a breed for everyone out there, even if that breed is of the stuffed toy variety.


I think that if someone cares about dogs in general, they SHOULD care about the health and structure of all breeds, not just "their" breed. For instance, I don't ever plan to get a Cavalier KCS, but I think their breeders should do all they can to make the breed healthier. I definitely don't want to ever have a Dalmatian, but I hope their breeders do something to make the breed healthier as well. if structurally unsound dogs are indeed winning at GSD shows and that's the direction the breed is going, I think this can impact all dogs negatively. It's not a breed thing, it's a dog thing.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy, reputable breeders are in programs to reduce and eliminate the health issues of their breed. However bashing someones chosen breed based on how they look is getting old.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> Frankly if you don't like the way a breed has developed, don't get into that breed, find one you like the structure/history/temperament/drive/ appearance of better.


If you don't want to see the breed you love suffer, support breeders who health test. PDE has made a huge difference in the lives of many Cavaliers and their owners. There is now a name to the disease that affects nearly every Cavalier, Chiari-like Malformation and Syringomyelia. Before PDE, many Cavalier owners thought their dogs were just drama queens. They are now being treated with proper medications so that they can have a much better quality of life. I know breeders hate PDE, but until it aired, there were no low cost MRIs, no EBVs in the UK. 

It is up to the general public, the puppy buyers to demand that dogs be bred not to excel in the show ring, but to be HEALTHY, structural sound and of GOOD TEMPERMENT. I could give a darn if any of my dogs ever got shown in a conformation ring. I do want them to be healthy and happy. I am not willing to give up on the breed I love.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Equinox said:


> spotted nikes - I do want you to know that I'm not making fun of you, just amused by this repeatedly beaten topic.
> 
> The German Shepherd Dog is an incredible breed. It is a shame you want to base your opinion of the fate of the breed on one extremely biased video.



I love GSDs, and have a 1/2 GSD. Had a purebred one as a kid. But they didn't have a hind end like that or walk like that. None of the dogs on that video at Crufts walked normal.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> I too would like to know why this has been brought up again. A site search brings up three different threads about GSDs and "Pedigree dogs Exposed" which is one of the worst and most biased documentaries out there...


I've never seen that piece of video with the judge stating that "that is normal" and an example of what the breed standard is. Sure a documantary can be one sided, but this is CRUFTS and a JUDGE stating that that gait/conformation is what they want.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Just because there are some dogs or even many dogs winning that can't walk right doesn't mean the breed as a whole is being ruined it just means that the people is this particular corner of the breed are ruining THEIR dogs thru improper goals. I have personally NEVER been to a dog show where I saw GSD's that looked like the dogs in those videos and I have been to a lot of dog shows.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

spotted nikes said:


> I've never seen that piece of video with the judge stating that "that is normal" and an example of what the breed standard is. Sure a documantary can be one sided, but this is CRUFTS and a JUDGE stating that that gait/conformation is what they want.


A lot of what was said in that vid was cut up by editing, and taken out of context. Most of the stuff hit the editing room floor.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

spotted nikes said:


> and a JUDGE stating that that gait/conformation is what they want.


That's politics and poor judge ethics. The dogs SHOWN in those videos WERE bad (wonder how many dogs they filmed that they didn't show you). There is no denying that, but are they typical of the majority of the breed? not by far.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I think that if someone cares about dogs in general, they SHOULD care about the health and structure of all breeds, not just "their" breed. For instance, I don't ever plan to get a Cavalier KCS, but I think their breeders should do all they can to make the breed healthier. I definitely don't want to ever have a Dalmatian, but I hope their breeders do something to make the breed healthier as well. if structurally unsound dogs are indeed winning at GSD shows and that's the direction the breed is going, I think this can impact all dogs negatively. It's not a breed thing, it's a dog thing.


The thing is . . . breeders are the ones underwriting research and submitting the samples and studying the pedigrees to try to breed around problems without trashing the breeds. Nobody sets out to breed unhealthy dogs. People do their best to breed healthy dogs. The thing is, we don't know what genes may be attached to other genes and what results certain combinations may have. Nature does not tend towards perfection. It tends towards randomness. It produces some outstandingly healthy specimens, some average specimens and some outstandingly nonfunctional specimens. This is true in randombreds as well. People just tend to accept that their mixes are going to have problems and they don't test for them unless the problem is glaringly obvious. I don't see you and Jemima out there actually doing anything to improve dogs. Just complaining about what a bad job everyone else is doing.


----------



## NRB (Sep 19, 2009)

Forgetting about the sensationalistic video, just looking around me at the GSD dogs that I see in town, at my familys house, I see mostly poor conformation that is always passed off as good conformation. From a strictly functional dog conformation point of view... I do not understand why people continue to breed dogs like this, roached backs, dropped front pasterns, weak hind ends, serious hock angulation that typically presents a funny gait. It remind me of the gliding step of the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horses...

Now don't get me wrong I love a dog no matter what and I understand why owners love their deaf dogs, their lame dogs, their dsyfunctional dogs....They are your fur babies and love is unconditional. I understand the love between an owner and a dog. But I don't understand why people are breeding/buying poor conformation, look me straight in the eye and say that their dog has good conformation b/c it adhears to the breed standard.....and yet I know poor/ unsound conformation when I see it. That's why I dont' understand the direction that the GSD dog seems to have taken... 

Now given, I am looking at dogs around town, at my cousins house etc, dogs in rescue, but not dogs at a show. I can't comment on them. I'm just talking about the population that I see on a day to day basis.

anyone else read the NYTime article on Oct 8, 2011 "Why German Shepherds Have Had Their Day"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/one-dog-that-has-had-its-day.html


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

NRB said:


> Forgetting about the sensationalistic video, just looking around me at the GSD dogs that I see in town, at my familys house, I see mostly poor conformation that is always passed off as good conformation. From a strictly functional dog conformation point of view... I do not understand why people continue to breed dogs like this, roached backs, dropped front pasterns, weak hind ends, serious hock angulation that typically presents a funny gait. It remind me of the gliding step of the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horses...
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I love a dog no matter what and I understand why owners love their deaf dogs, their lame dogs, their dsyfunctional dogs....They are your fur babies and love is unconditional. I understand the love between an owner and a dog. But I don't understand why people are breeding/buying poor conformation, look me straight in the eye and say that their dog has good conformation b/c it adhears to the breed standard.....and yet I know poor/ unsound conformation when I see it. That's why I dont' understand the direction that the GSD dog seems to have taken...
> 
> ...


Of the recent students I've had with GSDs (one a rescue, one from a breeder of working lines) they are lovely dogs with very nice temperaments, stable nerves and functional structure. If I wanted a GSD, that's the kind of dog I would want. Admittedly, I'm not attracted by the AmShowline dogs, but nobody requires that I have to own one. The NYT article seems to blame the decline of GSD on Rin Tin Tin.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

NRB said:


> I understand the love between an owner and a dog. But I don't understand why people are breeding/buying poor conformation, look me straight in the eye and say that their dog has good conformation b/c it adhears to the breed standard.....and yet I know poor/ unsound conformation when I see it. That's why I dont' understand the direction that the GSD dog seems to have taken...


I think a lot of owners just don't know better and believe what the breeder tells them. Just like how people feed their dogs Iams, Science Diet and Pedigree because their vets told them to and why wouldn't a dog buyer or patient trust their vet?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I think it's funny that the photo of the "properly structured working police dog" ALSO has the same "froggy" legs (here the hocks are pointed in and the toes are pointed out) that all of the show GSDs have. It's just that he's not stacked and the photo is at a weird angle so it looks like his topline is more level to the ground. It's an optical illusion!


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

I don't know GSDs well, but this is my question:

A structurally sound dog should not have movement that resembles what was portrayed in PDE. The unsteadiness on the feet during repositioning was most noticeable to me. If the dogs in PDE were not ideal and appealing (meaning people want to breed for similar conformation) then why were they in Crufts? Why did they ever even win a ribbon? Its my understanding that you can't just take a dog and go to Crufts; several judges have to think your dog is a good specimen.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> I don't know GSDs well, but this is my question:
> 
> A structurally sound dog should not have movement that resembles what was portrayed in PDE. The unsteadiness on the feet during repositioning was most noticeable to me. If the dogs in PDE were not ideal and appealing (meaning people want to breed for similar conformation) then why were they in Crufts? Why did they ever even win a ribbon? Its my understanding that you can't just take a dog and go to Crufts; several judges have to think your dog is a good specimen.


They may or may not have been at Crufts. Jemima Harrison is quite the propagandist, and has been known to tell outright lies about dogs.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Americans are lazy freaks who should not be suited to dog ownership. 

I will be setting out to prove that armed with a video camera - there are people out there, many, in fact, who do not take care of their dogs and do not give them the regular exercise they need. I will take videos of these dogs, but I don't think it's convincing enough. So I will go to the extremes, I will find the cruel low lifes involved in dog fighting, and I will use this as evidence to demonstrate why Americans are just horrific dog owners. 

Americans disgust me, as a civilization. 

Now, my own dog gets hours and hours of exercise and mental stimulation a day. But I really would like to make a convincing video, so I will take a picture of him while he is in his crate, and also maybe some video footage of him on the sofa, because that may make him look lazy. Oh! You know what would work great? He likes to tear into stuffed animals, so if I get video of that, I can caption it as what dogs do when they are clearly bored, neglected, and left to their own devices. I know my dog doesn't do it because he is completely bored out of his mind, but it would work perfectly for my video if I made it sound that way. 

The best part? I spoke to someone the other day who is a die hard PETA supporter - she thinks animal ownership is completely unethical and should be banned. I KNOW she will be happy to say awful things about Americans as pet owners. Of course she's biased, otherwise I wouldn't have her in the video... it will really just be the best. I can absolutely count on her and her fellow PETA supporters to give all the "right" answers (the answers I am looking for!!). 

:doh:



spotted nikes said:


> I love GSDs, and have a 1/2 GSD. Had a purebred one as a kid. But they didn't have a hind end like that or walk like that. None of the dogs on that video at Crufts walked normal.


But despite that, you still rather believe the words of a video that's been proven over and over again to be misleading, inaccurate, and extremely biased?



NRB said:


> Forgetting about the sensationalistic video, just looking around me at the GSD dogs that I see in town, at my familys house, I see mostly poor conformation that is always passed off as good conformation. From a strictly functional dog conformation point of view... I do not understand why people continue to breed dogs like this, roached backs, dropped front pasterns, weak hind ends, serious hock angulation that typically presents a funny gait. It remind me of the gliding step of the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horses...
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I love a dog no matter what and I understand why owners love their deaf dogs, their lame dogs, their dsyfunctional dogs....They are your fur babies and love is unconditional. I understand the love between an owner and a dog. But I don't understand why people are breeding/buying poor conformation, look me straight in the eye and say that their dog has good conformation b/c it adhears to the breed standard.....and yet I know poor/ unsound conformation when I see it. That's why I dont' understand the direction that the GSD dog seems to have taken...


Am I seriously the only one who has never, ever seen a hock walking German Shepherd "around town"?! These little anecdotes always surprise me because all the dogs I've seen (and yes, I've see plenty of show line dogs) are very sound dogs that keep up admirably with my 2 year old working line dog. I've only seen two obviously physically unsound dogs - one was a German show line, and the other an American show line/pet line dog that was neutered much, much too early. Even then, neither walked on their hocks. The German show line dog had a severely roached back, and the American show/pet line dog had extremely thin, long legs that did not support the body. 



NRB said:


> Now given, I am looking at dogs around town, at my cousins house etc, dogs in rescue, but not dogs at a show. I can't comment on them. I'm just talking about the population that I see on a day to day basis.
> 
> anyone else read the NYTime article on Oct 8, 2011 "Why German Shepherds Have Had Their Day"?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/one-dog-that-has-had-its-day.html


Yes, I have. A good German Shepherd is still worth its weight in gold, as was the German Shepherd of the past. But I will, without a doubt, breath a small sigh of relief if the breed ever goes down in popularity.



spotted nikes said:


> I love GSDs, and have a 1/2 GSD. Had a purebred one as a kid. But they didn't have a hind end like that or walk like that. None of the dogs on that video at Crufts walked normal.





NRB said:


> Forgetting about the sensationalistic video, just looking around me at the GSD dogs that I see in town, at my familys house, I see mostly poor conformation that is always passed off as good conformation. From a strictly functional dog conformation point of view... I do not understand why people continue to breed dogs like this, roached backs, dropped front pasterns, weak hind ends, serious hock angulation that typically presents a funny gait. It remind me of the gliding step of the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horses...
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I love a dog no matter what and I understand why owners love their deaf dogs, their lame dogs, their dsyfunctional dogs....They are your fur babies and love is unconditional. I understand the love between an owner and a dog. But I don't understand why people are breeding/buying poor conformation, look me straight in the eye and say that their dog has good conformation b/c it adhears to the breed standard.....and yet I know poor/ unsound conformation when I see it. That's why I dont' understand the direction that the GSD dog seems to have taken...
> 
> ...





+two said:


> I don't know GSDs well, but this is my question:
> 
> A structurally sound dog should not have movement that resembles what was portrayed in PDE. The unsteadiness on the feet during repositioning was most noticeable to me. If the dogs in PDE were not ideal and appealing (meaning people want to breed for similar conformation) then why were they in Crufts? Why did they ever even win a ribbon? Its my understanding that you can't just take a dog and go to Crufts; several judges have to think your dog is a good specimen.


Whoever said the ribbons being awarded are ALWAYS about structural soundness and RARELY about politics and petty kennel blindness?


----------



## mom24doggies (Mar 25, 2011)

I watched most of the PDE documentary (? I guess that's what it is?)...all I can say is wow. Very narrow-minded view. And IMO likening the Kennel Club to Hitler was over the top. I also noticed that most of the breeds used as examples of the horrors being done to PB dogs were the more "extreme" breeds...English Bulldogs, Pekes, Pugs, etc. I'm just not very impressed at all. I didn't watch all the way to the end though...does she present some sort of "cure" for these problems? At one point I felt like she was promoting mutts as the "ideal dog", saying that they were genetically healthier and lived longer. (Which they don't always...my mutt got cancer and died within 6 months at the age of almost 11. Not very old really...I see plenty of dogs of her approximate size/weight/possible mix of breeds that live far longer.)


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

+two said:


> I don't know GSDs well, but this is my question:
> 
> A structurally sound dog should not have movement that resembles what was portrayed in PDE. The unsteadiness on the feet during repositioning was most noticeable to me. If the dogs in PDE were not ideal and appealing (meaning people want to breed for similar conformation) then why were they in Crufts? Why did they ever even win a ribbon? Its my understanding that you can't just take a dog and go to Crufts; several judges have to think your dog is a good specimen.


That was kind of my point with posting. Why aren't there good GSD breeders protesting the judging? Why don't you see large movements among GSD breeders working on getting those judge's licenses pulled, that pinned those dogs? Why aren't the breeders rewriting breed standards so the judges can't say they are up to standard?

Does anyone have any video of GSD walking away and trotting that are currently winning in the ring, where they don't look like that?

Why does it seem like this is some "dirty little secret" that no one that loves GSD's wants to discuss? Other than to say, that good breeders don't breed for that. Why not "out" the judges that reward the bad conformation?

Has there ever been a movement/push by purebred breeders to require that dogs get titled in performance before being able to be shown in the ring in conformation? Wouldn't that solve the problem?


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

I love the GSD and have been getting into the breed as I hope to own one someday. 

I do not like the look of the really "arched" back or whatever. I HAVE seen them walk like this in real life and it saddens me. I've seen three GSD's in the past month at the dog park who walk around like a "frog" and it looks soo odd to me, they've gotta be in some kind of pain? I mean, they walk around like they are about to pee or squat or something.

But on the other hand, I've also met about 3 other GSD's who seemed more structurally sound and nice temperament too.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Here's a random dog show video I took off youtube. It wasn't edited. This just doesn't look healthy/normal/good for long term soundness, yet is what is showing apparently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf95aY8E7_E&feature=related

This shows the winner at Crufts in 2010 in Best of breed for GSD. The video w/the GSD is about 15 seconds in...(This wasn't edited either). This is actually a program about breed problems and how to correct them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksO_Xb95dbY


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

NRB said:


> Forgetting about the sensationalistic video, just looking around me at the GSD dogs that I see in town, at my familys house, I see mostly poor conformation that is always passed off as good conformation. From a strictly functional dog conformation point of view... I do not understand why people continue to breed dogs like this, roached backs, dropped front pasterns, weak hind ends, serious hock angulation that typically presents a funny gait. It remind me of the gliding step of the Big Lick Tennessee Walking horses...
> 
> Now given, I am looking at dogs around town, at my cousins house etc, dogs in rescue, but not dogs at a show. I can't comment on them. I'm just talking about the population that I see on a day to day basis.


GSDs are very, very popular. So that translates to a whole lot of BYBs. They aren't breeding with any goal in mind except puppies and probably money.
I have worked with a lot of GSDs. My last daycare fostered for a GSD rescue too. Now of all the GSDs I've worked with and encountered out on the town, I can think of maybe three that appeared to be structurally sound AND had stellar temperaments.

On top of that JQP, doesn't really think about what they're buying, looking at, etc. On Sunday, I had the pleasure of listening to this dumb*$$ talk about how well bred her cavalier is. When she tried to tell me that Kennedy is obviously very well bred too, I cut loose and schooled her. Kennedy is from a Missouri puppy mill.



+two said:


> I don't know GSDs well, but this is my question:
> 
> A structurally sound dog should not have movement that resembles what was portrayed in PDE. The unsteadiness on the feet during repositioning was most noticeable to me. If the dogs in PDE were not ideal and appealing (meaning people want to breed for similar conformation) then why were they in Crufts? Why did they ever even win a ribbon? Its my understanding that you can't just take a dog and go to Crufts; several judges have to think your dog is a good specimen.


Xeph and Pawzk9 already answered this.
I would like to add that I have been to all of two dog shows in my life and I can't judge those GSDs. I'll leave that to the experts. But good doG, those handlers fail.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Please at least make an effort to read my previous post, and the excellent points made in posts before mine by people who KNOW what they are talking about...



spotted nikes said:


> That was kind of my point with posting. Why aren't there good GSD breeders protesting the judging? Why don't you see large movements among GSD breeders working on getting those judge's licenses pulled, that pinned those dogs? Why aren't the breeders rewriting breed standards so the judges can't say they are up to standard?


Because it's not that simple?! The working line people often don't even see many of the show line dogs as German Shepherds anymore, and are all but beyond caring. The show line people who's dogs ARE winning are happy with what is going on, obviously, because they are reaping the benefits. 

What sort of movement do you propose? Breeders who try to make a difference will show and exhibit their stable, structurally and temperamentally correct dogs, but showing is not cheap or easy and kennel blindness and bias is often so prevalent that you will not see a significant impact so immediately, if at all. 

And for the record, breeders do not decide the breed standard... 



spotted nikes said:


> Does anyone have any video of GSD walking away and trotting that are currently winning in the ring, where they don't look like that?











Not a video, but an image that I have on hand of a German Shepherd Dog being shown at an all breed show.



spotted nikes said:


> Why does it seem like this is some "dirty little secret" that no one that loves GSD's wants to discuss?


That's what you got out of this??? 



spotted nikes said:


> Has there ever been a movement/push by purebred breeders to require that dogs get titled in performance before being able to be shown in the ring in conformation? Wouldn't that solve the problem?


The German breed registry (the SV) requires that - a working title (SCHH or HGH) prior to breeding.

Solve the problem?









You tell me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> A lot of what was said in that vid was cut up by editing, and taken out of context. Most of the stuff hit the editing room floor.


Kind of like a certain Mike Moore documentary I watched (actually knew three of the people that were in it) cut and pasted to make things look so much worse and one sided than they actually were.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Kind of like a certain Mike Moore documentary I watched (actually knew three of the people that were in it) cut and pasted to make things look so much worse and one sided than they actually were.


Did you watch the 2 other videos I posted...of the regular dog show and of the Crufts 2010 winner?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I've seen enough bad handling in those videos for the night. I've explained until I'm blue in the face on other threads how the correct angles of a GSD work to give power in the back end, go to those threads for my argument. Right now I'm exhausted from work and trying to get ready to pack out for a military move across country and really don't feel like getting into it.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Caroline, seriously, she's as biased as they come. She absolutely hates certain breeds, and she was under fire from the GSD community for what she said in that interview. She put the owner of that GSD in tears, that dog had ALL of it's health testing and passed them all. 

Wanna know how I know this, I know her brother and am good friends with him, plus there was a little excerpt put out by the GSD community stating this. 

And yes handling is pretty bad in the GSD ring in the UK, I could not stop laughing when I saw it. A lot of it is spacing, handlers are not giving the dogs enough room to move out. I am not saying I like what I see in those rings, cause I don't, I hate banana backs, but there is a lot more to it than what is shown in videos, and really if you don't know what you are looking at there is a lot of stuff missed

That GSD also has a SCH3, KK1, AD, and a BH. His hip scores were 3:3, elbows 0:0, and a few other things.

This is the winner (probably one of the most least extreme GSD I have seen in the UK): http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekennelclub/4440330857/

Read this stuff: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/forum/34251.html?mnr=34251

Caroline should be ashamed of herself, and I don't think she ever apologized.

I was at Crufts 2010, I saw this dog in person, he was gorgeous.

And one more thing, everyone of those breeds on the chopping block had to get a vet's approval of health, before moving on to the group ring, guess what the GSD passed.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Picture of the Top GSD in the US, gaiting. Look at the top line.









Not sure If I can find a video of him, Xeph may.


----------



## jenz (Aug 20, 2010)

ChaosIsAWeim- that is a handsome GSD!

My favorite GSDs are from the late 1800's and early 1900's. The first one, "Horand", is considered the Foundation Dog, I guess:




























All breeds evolve over the years, but it IS a bit striking to see how the toplines have changed. Even from the photo Equinox posted, of the modern GSD show dog standing almost 4-square... the early GSDs didn't seem to have that slope at all. I wish there was video from back then--I would have loved to see if these early guys had that famous flying trot you see nowadays, or if that's relatively new as well.

If I could find a GSD that looked like Horand or Hektor (Hektor is the second one) I might be persuaded to become a Shepherd person. I just adore their looks. HANDSOME. HANDSOME. But not in a typey-show dog way... more in a rugged farm-dog way. Just beautiful.

Jen


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

The early GSDs had no rear.

I'm grateful for Horand, for without him, there would be no GSD, but the dogs of the 1800s and early 1900s looked like mutts. They were definitely on their way to being a type, but they weren't pretty, IMO. And yeah, aesthetics are important to me. I don't get a dog JUST because of how it works (though that is very important to me). I have to look at the dog everyday, and I'd prefer not to think "God, you're hideous".


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Which one Capi or the one from England?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Which one Capi or the one from England?


The dogs from the 1800s and early 1900s. They had no "slope" (I really hate that word) because they had no rear. No rear is just as incorrect as too much.

Strauss has a "slope". Is he crippled?


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Sorry Xeph I was replying to jenz not you. I should have quoted but its hard to do on a phone.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Not a problem. It happens


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

If Strauss was crippled he would be pretty useless as a service dog to you, lol. I do not understand the whole notion that a slope means the dog is crippled, weims will slope sometimes but the could probably out run a lot of dogs without any slope.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> weims will slope sometimes but the could probably out run a lot of dogs without any slope.


Of course...they have more rear.

I guess a lot of people look past excessive rear on other breeds (which I see a lot in sporting breeds...GSPs, Weims, and Setters come to mind the most) because those breeds are unable to stand on their hocks.

I hate dogs that stand/are forced to stand on their hocks in my breed...but it doesn't mean that other breeds are less excessively angulated.

I watch setters walk past me that waddle and toe in like puppies because they've got so much angulation. Same issue, just manifesting different.

More rear can and DOES produce a more efficient outreaching gait. The problem is that people have taken that useful amount of rear, and taken it to an extreme.

There ARE people out there trying to change things, but people constantly whining about how GSDs are "broken" and "crippled" and "must be in pain" (the arched back is not attractive to me, either, but they are not in pain...it's just how their spines are formed) really doesn't make me want to keep discussing it and explaining it to people.

They'd rather whine about it, and degrade dogs.

I'd love to see things change faster! Would any of you complainers like to invest money in me and my kennel so I actually have a better chance of accomplishing that goal? Because shows ain't cheap.

I'm going to be going to the National Dog Show in Philadelphia this year. You know how much entries are going to cost me for ONE animal? $97-126 ($97 for 3 days, $126 for all four). That is ONLY the entry fees. That does not count my gas (it's a 5-6 hour trip for me), that does not count my lodging, that does not count my food.

The entire trip will be around $500.

That's ONE show weekend.


----------



## jenz (Aug 20, 2010)

> I'm grateful for Horand, for without him, there would be no GSD, but the dogs of the 1800s and early 1900s looked like mutts. They were definitely on their way to being a type, but they weren't pretty, IMO. And yeah, aesthetics are important to me. I don't get a dog JUST because of how it works (though that is very important to me). I have to look at the dog everyday, and I'd prefer not to think "God, you're hideous".


I think that's what attracts me to the early GSD, lol. The GSD of today is refined, gorgeous coat, with that "look of eagles"- they have such a definite type, and *power* to their expression. The early GSD looks a bit... rumpled. Rough around the edges. Maybe the correct word is "non-descript"- although I don't mean that in a bad way. They just look like a plain, every day farm shepherd--just a personal preference, I really like that look for some reason. 



> Sorry Xeph I was replying to jenz not you.


The one trotting? I love the way they "fly" like that. I was saying how handsome he is. You said he was the Top GSD in the US- a photo of him gaiting on grass. I'm not sure what his name is, though.

Jen


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

The one trotting is Capi, GCH Bandheim's Captain Crunch. And yeah he is a nice dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

GCH US Select Babheim's Captain Crunch "Capi"


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I think what everyone needs to hear from the GSD people here is were the dogs shown in PDE good examples of the breed? ( I say "no they weren't" but I'm just a lowly aussie person) And why were those dogs being given breed placements when they should have been denied ribbons in my eyes, that comes down to politics.

The other fact is that there are MANY MANY GSD's who look NOTHING like the dogs in the PDE videos who are winning in shows around the world.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> GCH US Select Babheim's Captain Crunch "Capi"


Yeah that's it. He was born in Mexico but has american parentage right?


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Xeph said:


> The dogs from the 1800s and early 1900s. They had no "slope" (I really hate that word) because they had no rear. No rear is just as incorrect as too much.
> 
> <snip>


So ... if this is true ... does other shepherds (belgian, etc) without slope "have no rear"? Please educate me. I know nothing about shepherds ... but loved a couple of GSDs with no 'slope' and straight backs way back when.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

It is politics, politics is bad everywhere. I have been burned many times by political/face judges, and I am never going to them again. If they think a dog that throws its front all over the place and is bug eyed is a good weim I would be wasting my money.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I'm going to post this again for people who seem to have missed it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekennelclub/4440330857/

This is a Crufts Best of Breed winner from 2010, 

This dog has accomplished the following

He has passed his hips and elbow scores
BH
AD- He had to run/trot for 12+ miles in 2 hours only stopping briefly for a drink, can your dog do that?
SCHIII- this is the highest level award for Schutzhund dogs bodies are put under considerable stress and require great physical soundness to reach this title
KKL1
Just try and tell me this dogs structure is weak when he has proved otherwise.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Exactly what I say


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm surprised people commenting on that picture are saying he has a weak rear. That rear is POWERFUL! Look at the width of this thigh, that's an Easter ham right there. I'm surprised he's an English dog, usually their German Shepherds are much lower stationed. Lagos is a little square for my taste, but that's due to leg length more than body length (I LOVE his short coupling). He's a beautiful, powerful animal.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

That dog was talked about horribly in the vid spotted posted. She used him as an example but didn't bother to look at the fact he is completely healthy. Worst part was it was aired on tv, I didn't watch it since I was at the show watching groups.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> but loved a couple of GSDs with no 'slope' and straight backs way back when.


*eye twitch* A dog with a sloping topline is not devoid of a straight back. Horizontal and straight are NOT The same thing.

By the way, nobody has commented on all the dogs I posted that do have correct structure.



> do other shepherds (belgian, etc) without slope "have no rear"?


Compared to a GSD, no, they don't have any rear. And they don't (and won't) exhibit the same power and drive off the rear a GSD should. They aren't built the same. They are an overall lighter dog with a completely different frame (square, as opposed to rectangular, as the GSD is).

Put your hands on some of these dogs. You're going to feel a slight slope in quite a few. Belgian rears and GSD rears aren't even comparable. The AKC GSD standard calls for rear angulation as close to 90* as possible (SV standard says 120*, and yet, they have overangulated dogs, too).

The FCI Belgian standard says the rear angles should match the fore angles, and thus the rear should be approximately 110-115*, which is less rear than what the GSD standard calls for (either standard).

ETA: And yes, Chaos, Capi is Mexican born, but American lines all the way. It's why I laugh when he's called an import.

Maybe he is by location, but his lines are nothing new to the US.



> surprised he's an English dog, usually their German Shepherds are much lower stationed.


Lagos is English bred by location, but he is European show lines by bloodline


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

A lot of the UK dogs are banana backed, he's not really.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> A lot of the UK dogs are banana backed, he's not really.


A lot of the UK dogs are, by bloodline, European show lines. They're German dogs.

I've looked at the pedigrees of dogs that have won...they're big winning German dogs. I don't understand why they're using German show lines over there and the like...confuses me between the low stationed Alsatians and then the WGSL dogs are winning.

By the way, here's his PDB photo:









Here he is again, just standing around


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> The thing is . . . breeders are the ones underwriting research and submitting the samples and studying the pedigrees to try to breed around problems without trashing the breeds. Nobody sets out to breed unhealthy dogs. People do their best to breed healthy dogs..


Breeders AND pet owners are underwriting research as they SHOULD be. I too often seen breeders patting themselves on the back for being involved in the organizations that do such things. They are also involved in the organizations that promote a system that exerts extreme selection pressures and that established the idea of closed stud books . . . which helped to drive up the prevalence rates of certain conditions so that they are a great threat to certain populations. Yay for them that they feel obliged to give help to fix the problems caused!!! I happen to feel it is their obligation.

The funds and the impetus for this research also often comes from pet owners. Ruperts Fund is an example of this in Cavaliers - pet owner initiated. 

In regards to the idea that nobody sets out to breed unhealthy dogs . . . . some just close their eyes and cross their fingers while knowing the chances of poor health are high. Please do not wash over that fact.

I LIKE good breeders . . . but that does not mean I will pretend that there are not many different rankings of breeders out there - some putting great effort in and others that are blowing off health testing and not being open about health in order to breed dogs of great 'type' and that can win . . . and I can provide examples.



Pawzk9 said:


> . . . . I don't see you and Jemima out there actually doing anything to improve dogs. Just complaining about what a bad job everyone else is doing.


Then I would suggest that you get your sight checked. 

I will come right out and say that I am a HUGE fan of PDE and Jemima. The documentary might have peeed some off (just as Moore's pee me off) but it moved mountains in the Cavalier world where IMHO every other form of persuasion had been tried before to no avail.



Pawzk9 said:


> They may or may not have been at Crufts. Jemima Harrison is quite the propagandist, and has been known to tell outright lies about dogs.


Please provide an example or two if you are intent on this type of slander.



mom24doggies said:


> I watched most of the PDE documentary (? I guess that's what it is?)...all I can say is wow. Very narrow-minded view. And IMO likening the Kennel Club to Hitler was over the top. .)


Your take on what was said was that it likened the Kennel Club to Hitler . . . . please check how much emotion went into that perception as I have the video and have watched it many times over and it did not. Whenever I read someone say something similar I think 'huh?' cuz I could not even imagine that as the take away from what was said on PDE. It said something very different but it appears sometimes people choose to not understand the nuances. On her blog Jemima has addressed this exaggerated emotional perception made by some.



> Pedigree Dogs Exposed did not include images of the holocaust or concentration camps and did not call dog breeders "Nazis". It did, however,document the relationship between dog-breeding practices and discredited eugenics theory as practised by Hitler. This point was made in the film by Professor Steve Jones and Professor James Serpell, both well-qualified to do so.
> 
> The link has been well-documented by historians and academics - including by the Kennel Club's own genetics advisor, Jeff Sampson:
> 
> ...


http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/p/pde-myths-busted.html

SOB


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Xeph said:


> A lot of the UK dogs are, by bloodline, European show lines. They're German dogs.
> 
> I've looked at the pedigrees of dogs that have won...they're big winning German dogs. I don't understand why they're using German show lines over there and the like...confuses me between the low stationed Alsatians and then the WGSL dogs are winning.
> 
> ...


A google image search shows lots of photos of this guy with a top line that looks most like the top photo which leads me to wonder if the bottom photo isn't a bit misleading. 

http://images.google.com/search?tbm...gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l0l125l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

All of the photos that show him with an exaggerated topline have a human involved.

My bitch doesn't have a very extreme topline when she freestacks, but I can make her more extreme looking when I hand set her.

Here's a very young Lagos...over stretched in the rear, but the topline isn't hideous like on his PDB photo
http://pix2.telenet.be/S5TmbC58WhqI...mEOn!4!wW!md7ZgrKVgZ8g7CUgQD2SE_/IMG_3178.JPG

Probably the most accurate you'll find where a human is involved, next to his crufts picture

Free stacked Rada:









Hand stacked Rada:









Which is really more accurate?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Xeph said:


> All of the photos that show him with an exaggerated topline have a human involved.
> 
> My bitch doesn't have a very extreme topline when she freestacks, but I can make her more extreme looking when I hand set her.
> 
> ...


Rada is a good looking G.S.D . . . but then I'm partial to G.S.D. coloring! I don't like the look of the rear in either of his photos . . . but again that is about visual preferences. I don't know how the conversation has gone in this direction though (looking at individual dogs). I believe Keechak has nailed the question that resides in my head when I see some G.S.D.s.



Keechak said:


> I think what everyone needs to hear from the GSD people here is were the dogs shown in PDE good examples of the breed? ( I say "no they weren't" but I'm just a lowly aussie person) And why were those dogs being given breed placements when they should have been denied ribbons in my eyes, that comes down to politics.
> 
> The other fact is that there are MANY MANY GSD's who look NOTHING like the dogs in the PDE videos who are winning in shows around the world.


I read posters stating that it is down to politics . . . . . but that statement is in itself the problem then that needs to be addressed. What changes need to be made to change up the politics so exaggerations (if they are unhealthy) aren't continued? How can the system of rewards to changed for the better . . . or can it be?

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I don't know how the conversation has gone in this direction though (looking at individual dogs).


You pointed out Lagos' exaggerated topline in other photos...the exaggeration is caused by human handling. The picture of him standing naturally is what I'd call most accurate looking at his structure.



> What changes need to be made to change up the politics so exaggerations (if they are unhealthy) aren't continued? How can the system of rewards to changed for the better . . . or can it be?


Probably can't be.

Change takes money. A lot of it.

You know why things are the way they are? Because the top winning kennels are as the tops for a reason....that reason is MONEY. They have it. The smaller hobby breeders do not.

They say you should buy the best bitch you can afford. Well, there are some great people with great ideas out there that would love things to change, but they cannot afford the price tag of an adult (and sometimes proven) bitch. They run in the thousands, unless you get lucky...and you're often stuck with co ownerships (buying an adult bitch outright is more expensive than purchasing on a co ownership)

If you CAN afford such a bitch, GREAT! Can you afford the numerous shows? The huge stud fees? Shipping your bitch to get her titled if you can't do it yourself? Can you, and are you willing to put up big kennel buildings, and have very few house dogs/have to rotate those dogs so you can spend time with them? How about the kennel help? You need that to be successful, and they'll want to get paid.

The big kennels, all across the country, in many, MANY breeds have tons of money...whether it is their own, or through sponsors. Money controls how things go, pure and simple.

It is rare for a kennel to be big winning and breed changing without a lot of luck if the breeder is small time.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Xeph said:


> . . . . Probably can't be.
> 
> Change takes money. A lot of it.
> 
> ...


See . . . . this is how I saw things in purebred breeding and especially in Cavaliers before PDE happened. Now I know that a good loud shocking documentary can bring attention that can then start changes happening. I happen to be one that is happy for that.

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I think for breeds like the Cavalier the documentary did bring important attention to some SERIOUS issues. But I will always take issue with the way it was done.

On top of that, people just aren't going to like the structure of some breeds. Are we supposed to change them to fit THEIR tastes? Breeders are already being lambasted for that. So why is it ok for breeders to breed for the tastes of the public, but not themselves?

Francesco Anrebri, the sable dog I posted (that nobody bothered to comment on), is V rated (Excellent conformation) in Germany. He has his Schutzhund III title. He is a versatile, impressive, beautifully structured dog. And Oh em gee, his topline slopes!

And guess what? He's not a show line dog! 100% working lines, through and through! His structure is correct, but he will never go VA, and THAT is POLITICS. He is VA worthy as per the standard. He is an excellent producer, his structure is beautiful, he is an excellent worker. But he won't go VA because he is not black and red with an Akita head and an exaggerated topline.

BTW, there are also show lines out there that are beautiful, functional, and structurally correct WITHOUT those overdone toplines....but you're going to see them wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy at the back of the line at the sieger show, because it's not what judges are accustomed to anymore, and it's not what they want...and it will stay that way as long as money is involved.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> The early GSDs had no rear.
> 
> I'm grateful for Horand, for without him, there would be no GSD, but the dogs of the 1800s and early 1900s looked like mutts. They were definitely on their way to being a type, but they weren't pretty, IMO. And yeah, aesthetics are important to me. I don't get a dog JUST because of how it works (though that is very important to me). I have to look at the dog everyday, and I'd prefer not to think "God, you're hideous".


Well, yeah, they have "rear", but it is a moderately angulated rear end which one might see in many breeds. I wonder if von Stephanitz was actually breeding towards the sort of outline one sees in many current GSD. The fact is, I find it extreme, but recognize that it doesn't necessarily mean the dog is unsound. I don't find it particularly attractive, but I recognize that I don't get to tell other people what they can enjoy looking at. That would be the difference in me and people like Jemima Harrison who wants to legislate that people can have only exactly the kind of dogs she thinks should exist.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> . . . . That would be the difference in me and people like Jemima Harrison who wants to legislate that people can have only exactly the kind of dogs she thinks should exist.


Again . . . evidence for that or just your opinion?

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> but it is a moderately angulated rear end which one might see in many breeds.


I'd call a modern day Belgian moderate....old GSDs are underangulated IMO. They completely lack turn of stifle and breadth of thigh.

BTW, people asked for video of dogs walking that win in the ring today.

Here are two.

An 11 month old male:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oIh16ZvKRs

And Mirada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwrKUs-QoAw

The 11 month old is more stongly ligamented. He moves close going away, but isn't wobbly, and he walks on the pads of his feet.

Mirada is loose in ligamentation, and also toes in slightly, which makes the wobbling a bit worse.

She's still plenty functional, and when making breeding decisions, things like that need to be taken into account. There is no perfect dog, and dogs with not so great ligamentation have been around for ever and ever.

Overdone rears have a little to do with it, but that's not the whole story. People just make assumptions and believe what they like.

If Mirada's ligaments were stronger, you'd observe no/minimal "knocking about".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Again . . . evidence for that or just your opinion?
> 
> SOB


You didn't find her agenda painfully obvious to the point of blatant? My goodness, we must have been watching different pseudo-documentaries, you and I!


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

*A cripple*




















Well, shit. I guess my dog is one.


----------



## mom24doggies (Mar 25, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Your take on what was said was that it likened the Kennel Club to Hitler . . . . please check how much emotion went into that perception as I have the video and have watched it many times over and it did not. Whenever I read someone say something similar I think 'huh?' cuz I could not even imagine that as the take away from what was said on PDE. It said something very different but it appears sometimes people choose to not understand the nuances. On her blog Jemima has addressed this exaggerated emotional perception made by some.


 I'm not choosing to not understand anything, thanks very much. Here's the part I was talking about, skip to about 06:47. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZNVewvFm4M I get what she's saying; basically, the Eugenics movement, which reached it's peak with Hitler if I'm understanding her correctly, is still in play, just with dogs. To me, she compared the KC with Hitler, basically saying that it's doing the same thing he (or others who have tried to eliminate/create a race) did. Oh and I don't need to "check how much emotion went into that perception..." thanks; you seriously need to find ways of expressing your opinion without being rude. Sorry you don't agree with my take on PDE.

ETA: A question to you GSD experts: what do you mean when you say the GSD has a "lot of rear"? As in, the dog has a very powerful rear? Or...? I'm a little confused. I get the whole angulation thing though.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> A question to you GSD experts: what do you mean when you say the GSD has a "lot of rear"


The angulation in the breed can be excessive. We're discussing the literal angles that are formed by the bones of the dogs.

Here's a bitch with a lot of rear









Here's a bitch with a moderate rear:









Both bitches are American lines


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Grace you should show how Trent looks out of a stack so people can see how a GSD stack changes the appearance of the dog's topline


----------



## mom24doggies (Mar 25, 2011)

Xeph said:


> The angulation in the breed can be excessive. We're discussing the literal angles that are formed by the bones of the dogs.
> 
> Here's a bitch with a lot of rear
> 
> ...


 OK I get it, thanks.  You were referring to the amount of _angulation_, not the amount of _rear end_ on the dog. Ha ha, silly me.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Baby Mogwai just standing around xD










6-7 monthsish. She looked like a rat, but it's still a decent example









Aaaaaaaaaaaaand what happened when she tried a little too hard to free stack


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> You didn't find her agenda painfully obvious to the point of blatant? My goodness, we must have been watching different pseudo-documentaries, you and I!


I obviously did not see the same agenda that you did . . . . . and maybe we watched through different lenses. 

In her own words, though, as per your accusation that she _"wants to legislate that people can have only exactly the kind of dogs she thinks should exist."_

_



I am an animal welfarist, not an animal rightsist. I believe - passionately - that there is much to be treasured about the purebred dog. I also believe that people should be free to do with them as they wish as long as it doesn't unncessarily compromise the health and welfare of the dog. And, yep, that includes work, sport, hunting - and even showing.

Click to expand...

_http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/04/purebred-paradox-to-go-or-not-to-go.html

SOB


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Keechak said:


> Grace you should show how Trent looks out of a stack so people can see how a GSD stack changes the appearance of the dog's topline





















Stacked










My sister did this one LOL










Still stacked!!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> The angulation in the breed can be excessive. We're discussing the literal angles that are formed by the bones of the dogs.
> 
> Here's a bitch with a lot of rear
> 
> ...


I would not call either dog "moderate", but that's just me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I obviously did not see the same agenda that you did . . . . . and maybe we watched through different lenses.
> 
> In her own words, though, as per your accusation that she _"wants to legislate that people can have only exactly the kind of dogs she thinks should exist."_
> 
> ...


So, does she address in her blog lies she's written about breeders and their dog's health status - for instance the Shar Pei she claimed both parents died of Shar Pei fever (dam died of unrelated causes, sire still alive)?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


>


Mirada is making the same mistake many people make when they get into breeding dogs (of any breed, German Shepherds being one of the most visible).

If some is good, more must be better.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Mirada is making the same mistake many people make when they get into breeding dogs (of any breed, German Shepherds being one of the most visible).
> 
> If some is good, more must be better.


Raegan gets a cookie!



> I would not call either dog "moderate", but that's just me.


Indeed


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, does she address in her blog lies she's written about breeders and their dog's health status - for instance the Shar Pei she claimed both parents died of Shar Pei fever (dam died of unrelated causes, sire still alive)?


I don't believe my definition of a lie matches yours. I thought I'd check Merriam-Webster and I got this.



> intransitive verb
> 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive


When those that we might disagree with make an error, and admit it, withdraw the statement, and immediately apologize for it . . . . it becomes a lie for those that like to condemn. Good to know. I'll stick with the definition that I know though.

I am a subscriber to the PDE blog. The topic of 'Wrink', BIS UK & Am Ch Asia's Redmarsh Whip It Good, or his relatives were not discussed on the blog by my memory of many posts on Sharpeis, BUT for those that might want to know about this event here is a link to a Ourdogs article - which has inaccuracies but is good for the read as it sets the situation up.

http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2011/Feb2011/pedigree.htm

Jemima contributes to the Champdogs forum where posters and her had a conversation about this event. The url for the full thread is here for those interested in a 7 page read - http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/128619.html

In Jemima Harrison's words: 

http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=1215560#pid1215560



> I haven't read the Our Dogs article, so am not aware of exactly what it says. But just so you have the facts of this case..
> 
> I was contacted a few weeks ago by several people extremely concerned about Shar-pei breeders continuing to use dogs that had produced Shar-pei Fever or were very closely related to dogs that either had, or had produced, Shar-Pei Fever. The sources were very plausible and I decided to use two of the cases as an example of how things still needed cleaning up in certain areas at an APGAW meeting in December.
> 
> ...


Another from her on page three: - http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=1215662#pid1215662

And I found part of this post by Doglicious on page four interesting as well: http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=1215778#pid1215778



> . . . . . . As for the US breeder who is the topic of much debate on here. I can assure you that no legal action will be taking place against JH. The US breeder said of the dog in question's mother: "...died at 9 years old. Euthanized after a severe stroke. Cause never defined. Kidney and liver function all within normal at exam....blood pressure normal...was defined as stroke for no better explanation from vet....but CRS was positive."....... The dog in question's sister is dead although not from FSF or Amyloidosis. One of the sister's offspring has had FSF and is now in the final stages of renal failure, diagnosed as amyloidosis.
> 
> Those are the facts!
> 
> ...


Here you can find a link to the actual minutes of the Dec. meeting where you can read that Jemima has unreservedly withdrawn her statement about the parents of Wrink - http://www.apgaw.org/meetings-a-events/minutes-archive

Soooo ....... my question PawzK9, cuz I truly do not understand, why vilify Jemima in all this and take such joy in finding her errors to the point of exaggerating them (as many do)? To what end? Do you believe it helps dogs? Does anybody?

To me it is just comes across like 'shoot the messenger', and I've never understood that mindset.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I don't believe my definition of a lie matches yours. I thought I'd check Merriam-Webster and I got this.
> 
> 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
> 
> ...



When you're going to go quoting dictionary definitions, it's really a good idea not to just stop at one. 
noun 
1. 
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 
2. 
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 
3. 
an inaccurate or false statement. 

I do not think what JH wrote about this dog was an honest mistake. When you have put yourself in a position of "authority" on a subject, it really does well to be more than a little careful about the statements you make. Repeating rumor as fact doesn't quite cut it. And neither does "Oopsie, I made a mistake, so dreadfully sorry!"



spanielorbust said:


> Soooo ....... my question PawzK9, cuz I truly do not understand, why vilify Jemima in all this and take such joy in finding her errors to the point of exaggerating them (as many do)? To what end? Do you believe it helps dogs? Does anybody?
> 
> To me it is just comes across like 'shoot the messenger', and I've never understood that mindset.
> 
> SOB


Hmn, why does JH villify others without facts. I don't think she is an innocent. I don't think she is well intentioned (though no doubt she will tell people she is) I don't think she would have owned up to spreading false information unless she was called on it and worried about getting sued. I don't think she is a "messager" but a master propagandist with an agenda which is counter to the interests of people who care about purebred animals.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> . . . .I do not think what JH wrote about this dog was an honest mistake. . I don't think she is an innocent. I don't think she is well intentioned . . . . .I don't think she is a "messager" but a master propagandist with an agenda which is counter to the interests of people who care about purebred animals.


And there you have it. Have your opinion about Jemima, and I will disagree. I have corresponded with her on lists and privately since 2007 - long before PDE. I believe her, and have not seen any evidense to not believe her . . . but then I also see no need to vilify her and see no benefit in doing so . . . quite the opposite in fact.

Obviously with our thoughts being different here we will not convince each other, but I will continue to put straight those that make incorrect and exaggerated statements about the contents of PDE and defamatory personal statements about Jemima for no reason but that they didn't like the style of her program so they choose to go on a personal attack.

I believe breeders that take part in this kind of behaviour are doing more of a disservice to the image of breeders than any program ever could.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> And there you have it. Have your opinion about Jemima, and I will disagree. I have corresponded with her on lists and privately since 2007 - long before PDE. I believe her, and have not seen any evidense to not believe her . . . but then I also see no need to vilify her and see no benefit in doing so . . . quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> Obviously with our thoughts being different here we will not convince each other, but I will continue to put straight those that make incorrect and exaggerated statements about the contents of PDE and defamatory personal statements about Jemima for no reason but that they didn't like the style of her program so they choose to go on a personal attack.
> 
> ...


It's clear we won't agree on this, and that is fine. The fact is, she vilifies breeders, she manipulates the facts and misrepresents (if you don't care for the word "lie") and then gets terribly, terribly sorry and apologetic when she is called out on it (and blames her sources -which she should have checked before making statements. When she stops making defamatory statements about breeders and their dogs, I'll cut her some slack. But til then, nope. Put that out there, expect to get some back. And oh, I'm not a breeder. Just someone who is very involved with dogs. (And I'm sorry she's your friend.)


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

. . . . . and you forgot to mention that because of the impetus from PDE, starting 2012 those that want to purchase a Cavalier King Charles in the UK will have open access to the MRI health test status of their parents and ancestors.

And that is just one of numerous accomplishments FOR DOGS that have come about because of 'that program'. 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> . . . . . and you forgot to mention that because of the impetus from PDE, starting 2012 those that want to purchase a Cavalier King Charles in the UK will have open access to the MRI health test status of their parents.
> 
> And that is just one of numerous accomplishments FOR DOGS that have come about because of 'that program'.
> 
> SOB


Even the worst intentioned propaganda may have one or two positive results (because propaganda only works if there is a kernel of truth involved.) Personally, I can't imagine being dumb enough to pay what a CKCS costs without seeing the MRI status (and cardio) I still say the program did much more harm than good for dogs. And that an honest representation was never the intent.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> . . . And that an honest representation was never the intent.


Confused here. With the title Pedigree Dogs EXPOSED, what type of documentary were you expecting? 

IF W5, as an example, makes an expose on pedophiles in our schools, do you believe that they need to balance that by showing most teachers are not? As a teacher am I then supposed to feel vilified if they did not? . . . or perhaps that was not what you meant?

Don't quite get this type of thinking.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Confused here. With the title Pedigree Dogs EXPOSED, what type of documentary were you expecting?
> 
> IF W5, as an example, makes an expose on pedophiles in our schools, do you believe that they need to balance that by showing most teachers are not? . . . or perhaps that was not what you meant?
> 
> ...


So, you are now comparing breeders to pedophiles? Wow, that's pretty bizarre and extreme. I will say I was not expecting much of the documentary and "not much" is exactly what I got. Now, if a documentary portrayed that all or a majority teachers were, in fact pedophiles or okay with pedophiles, the way this documentary portrayed all the people in the dog show culture (breeders/exhibitors/judges/registries) to be, I think someone would be demanding an apology. If someone edited comments in a documentary about twisted teachers to the point where it looked like the principal thought it was fine, what do you think people would say?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, you are now comparing breeders to pedophiles? Wow, that's pretty bizarre and extreme. I will say I was not expecting much of the documentary and "not much" is exactly what I got. Now, if a documentary portrayed that all or a majority teachers were, in fact pedophiles or okay with pedophiles, the way this documentary portrayed all the people in the dog show culture (breeders/exhibitors/judges/registries) to be, I think someone would be demanding an apology. If someone edited comments in a documentary about twisted teachers to the point where it looked like the principal thought it was fine, what do you think people would say?


Well . . .that statement right there just shows me how your mind works. 

I did not compare breeders to pedophiles . . . but you made that leap somehow and are accusing me of doing just such a thing.

The documentary did not portray the majority of breeders in any way . . . and it never claimed to . . . but your head has taken it there it seems just the same way it took my comment as a comparison of breeders to pedophiles.

I would exclaim 'unbelievable' but it becomes all too plain that the conversation becomes pointless when people draw whatever conclusions they want to to suit their own purpose. It is clearly at an impasse.

FWIW - as someone in the teaching profession the worst accusation one can field is that of being a pedophile and thus comparing the feelings one would have over that accusation about their profession on a expose is a very fair comparison *to the same feelings *breeders would have about an expose on their bad apples. This is NOT the same as comparing pedophiles and teachers. I am AMAZED that would require an explanation.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Well . . .that statement right there just shows me how your mind works.
> 
> I did not compare breeders to pedophiles . . . but you made that leap somehow and are accusing me of doing just such a thing.
> 
> ...


PDE wasn't exposing bad apples - it was attacking a culture. I didn't bring pedophiles into the conversation as a comparison - you did. One documentary is on breeders, and so you compare that to a documentary on pedophilia in the school system. Perhap you need to either read what you write, or think harder about what sort of parallel you are actually trying to draw, since the parallel you did draw appears not to be what you meant (or maybe it actually was what you meant)


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I didn't bring pedophiles into the conversation as a comparison - you did.


No, that was not the comparison made, as explained above, but it becomes clearer all the time that Thomas Paine is a smart fella.



> _To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead._



SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> but it becomes clearer all the time that Thomas Paine is a smart fella.
> To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
> 
> SOB


Okay, I guess that means I need to stop arguing with you, eh?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Actually I think you are misinterpreting the pedophile comparison, Pawzk9. It seemed pretty obvious to me that there wasn't a direct comparison being made between breeders and pedophiles.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Actually I think you are misinterpreting the pedophile comparison, Pawzk9. It seemed pretty obvious to me that there wasn't a direct comparison being made between breeders and pedophiles.


What would even possess someone to compare a film about breeders to a film about pedophiles, regardless of what their point is? The fact is, that movie didn't just portray a few "bad apples". It left the intentional impression that show breeders/exhibitors/judges care nothing for the dogs or their health. So, yeah, if you are implying that nobody in the school system is concerned about pedophilia, it's important to present a balanced picture and talk to the people who are not okay with it if your real concern is fairness. If that's not the concern, it's not the concern. It is clearly not the concern of JH or her little movie.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> What would even possess someone to compare a film about breeders to a film about pedophiles, regardless of what their point is?


Well if I was reading it correctly the point was to question whether if you are making a documentary that is clearly about the bad apples among any group of people, you have any obligation to present the side of the good apples.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Well if I was reading it correctly the point was to question whether if you are making a documentary that is clearly about the bad apples among any group of people, you have any obligation to present the side of the good apples.


If you are making a documentary that indicates that a whole class of people is "bad apples" then, yes, I think you do have an obligation (thinking you left the work "don't" out there?) to present the side of the good apples - for instance the health tests that are ONLY available for dogs because of the strong backing and contributions by this same group of maligned folks.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Argue it with her, not me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Argue it with her, not me.


I believe I tried that, but she said it was like giving medicine to a dead person. So, I acknowledge the validity of that quote.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

I think the intention of the documentary was to expose inadequecies in certain areas. The intention was not to vilify breeders who know about gentic defects and congential/inherited diseases and health test responsibly. I think the intention was to point out the breeders who don't, or who do and cover up inadequecies or continue to breed sick or inferior dogs, hence "bad apples" and not breeders as a whole.

That was just the impression I got though. I realise that everybody has a different perspective.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> I think the intention of the documentary was to expose inadequecies in certain areas. The intention was not to vilify breeders who know about gentic defects and congential/inherited diseases and health test responsibly. I think the intention was to point out the breeders who don't, or who do and cover up inadequecies or continue to breed sick or inferior dogs, hence "bad apples" and not breeders as a whole.
> 
> That was just the impression I got though. I realise that everybody has a different perspective.


This! 



> Personally, I can't imagine being dumb enough to pay what a CKCS costs without seeing the MRI status (and cardio)


You might if you were told by these breeders that MRIs mean nothing and there has never been a case of CM/SM in their lines. Talk about telling lies! One "reputable" breeder kept saying that there was no SM in her lines even after the owner of one the puppies she bred tried to contact her with the MRI results of her dog showing SM. The "reputable" (well known) breeder ignored all emails, calls, letters.

The national clubs have watered down their code of ethics regarding age of breeding with regard to MVD heart clearances to the point that they will do next to nothing to eliminate early onset mitral valve disease. As a cavalier owner and lover of this breed, I thank JH and those involved with PDE for the difference that they have made to Cavalier health and well being.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Actually I think you are misinterpreting the pedophile comparison, Pawzk9. It seemed pretty obvious to me that there wasn't a direct comparison being made between breeders and pedophiles.


It was obvious to me too.

So far I've seen people pointing out positive things that have happened as a result of PDE. I haven't seen any negative results, aside from some people's noses being bent out of joint, because they didn't like seeing anything about their breed of choice portrayed negatively. So if I had to choose between some positive results, like the CKCS, and hurting some people's feelings, or nothing being done, I'd take the former. Maybe that show would be a wakeup call for those judges rewarding poor conformation, or giving ribbons based on politics.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Whatever the intent of the documentary was the fact is that a lot of people who are not "in the dog world" who saw the video have used what they saw in the video to develop a small hate for ME as a person who shows dogs. Even tho I was never a part of what was shown in that documentary. I have had to basically learn to verbally defend myself and re teach people that just because I show dogs doesn't mean I condone the bad that was shown in that video. I do believe the video had a few good repercussions but to deny the fact that I have personally had people who watched it villainize ME by association is a little upsetting.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Keechak said:


> Whatever the intent of the documentary was the fact is that a lot of people who are not "in the dog world" who saw the video have used what they saw in the video to develop a small hate for ME as a person who shows dogs. Even tho I was never a part of what was shown in that documentary. I have had to basically learn to verbally defend myself and re teach people that just because I show dogs doesn't mean I condone the bad that was shown in that video. I do believe the video had a few good repercussions but to deny the fact that I have personally had people who watched it villainize ME by association is a little upsetting.


To me this shows ignorance though. For somebody who has by no means attempted to search into or educate themselves about a subject, and then browbeat others about it, shows a complete lack of tact and intelligence. 

I don't think that was the intentional purpose of the film, in my mind the purpose was quite clear in that "wakeup call" aspect to the few breeders but not as a whole. To me, although I'm interested in conformation it is by no means the end all be all. The dog has to be able to perform it's intended purpose (which it's obvious you practice in ) have the correct temperament, be sound and healthy, etc, etc. How the dog looks takes a back seat to all that. I have met a few incredibly self-centered, short-sighted breeders who don't look past having "the prettiest dog" in the ring. These extreme _few_ however should not reflect upon a whole, as more often than not breeders I've encountered are incredibly concerned about health, temperament and the general well-being of their breed and individual dogs. 

If somebody was ignorant enough to attack me for participation in an event such as conformation I would have to ask them how much time they've spent researching in an attempt to gain a full understanding of the subject. If I watched a Michael Moore documentary and therefore believed everyone in Canada slept with their doors unlocked because he managed to open a few I'd be sadly mistaken, and I would hope the majority of the population is intelligent enough to discern that. I will admit, however, that an ignorant few might not question it and accept it as fact. However, these are not the idiots that I would waste my breath on, nor spend my time trying to defend and justify myself against. Like it was earlier mentioned.. "medication to the dead"

To me the failed logic is obvious. "Some breeders produce unsound, unhealthy dogs, so therefore all breeders are bad.." is on par with "Sometimes sick people in hospitals die, so therefore we should demolish all hospitals." It doesn't make any logical sense to me, so perhaps that's why it hasn't occured to me why other people would take that kind of an angle with it. 

I do understand your frustration though.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Keechak said:


> Whatever the intent of the documentary was the fact is that a lot of people who are not "in the dog world" who saw the video have used what they saw in the video to develop a small hate for ME as a person who shows dogs. Even tho I was never a part of what was shown in that documentary. I have had to basically learn to verbally defend myself and re teach people that just because I show dogs doesn't mean I condone the bad that was shown in that video. I do believe the video had a few good repercussions but to deny the fact that I have personally had people who watched it villainize ME by association is a little upsetting.


A few years ago, the party line was that "BYBs' and "Puppy mill" breeders were "bad" and in order to be a responsible breeder you had to be breeding dogs based on show ring championships. Now the show people are defamed (no mention of the hard work they have put into healthier dogs). Lending credence to the actual agenda, which is that breeders are "bad" and rescues and shelters are "good". Not saying that all show breeders are wonderful, but I respect a lot of the hard work they've done. I recognize that this documentary has been a tool in discrediting hobby breeders. And I don't think that was an accident.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> To me the failed logic is obvious. "Some breeders produce unsound, unhealthy dogs, so therefore all breeders are bad.." is on par with "Sometimes sick people in hospitals die, so therefore we should demolish all hospitals." It doesn't make any logical sense to me, so perhaps that's why it hasn't occured to me why other people would take that kind of an angle with it.
> 
> I do understand your frustration though.


But, that is the message presented by this so-called documentary. Have you watched it?


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

ADalla said:


> To me the failed logic is obvious. "Some breeders produce unsound, unhealthy dogs, so therefore all breeders are bad.." is on par with "Sometimes sick people in hospitals die, so therefore we should demolish all hospitals." It doesn't make any logical sense to me, so perhaps that's why it hasn't occured to me why other people would take that kind of an angle with it.


But people DO make sweeping generalizations based on little to no knowledge. So maybe you see the lack of logic. I see it. But somebody, somewhere was killed by a pit bull mix so pits are being banned and taken from their homes. People fail in the logic department.

If you want to say that X group of people is failing the GSD breeding "bad apples", then you need to show what actions are desirable. This is what's good. This is what to look for when you get your puppy. This is ethical breeding.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Yes, I have watched it Pawzk9, and have stated so a few times. I have alot of friends who have watched it. I don't think any of us walked away with the message that breeding should no longer ever be done. What I did walk away with is "Ask questions about the screenings and health of parents because not all breeders do this." kind of statement. 

I did notice a strong leaning towards mixed breeds, which in my own opinion are no healthier than most purebreds. Genetics are genetics and predispositions are predispositions. A Golden Retriever mixed with a Husky is still going to have the same risk factors for hip dysplasia.. probably infact more so since the mix is less likely to have its dam/sire screened for those particular conditions. But still, I did not walk away from the piece that she was advocating nobody ever breed any dog ever again. I do believe there was a strong calling for increased responsibility to the health of what is produced from those breeders failing to do so... Again, as I've stated my view earlier. 



Tofu_pup said:


> But people DO make sweeping generalizations based on little to no knowledge. So maybe you see the lack of logic. I see it. But somebody, somewhere was killed by a pit bull mix so pits are being banned and taken from their homes. People fail in the logic department.
> 
> If you want to say that X group of people is failing the GSD breeding "bad apples", then you need to show what actions are desirable. This is what's good. This is what to look for when you get your puppy. This is ethical breeding.


Totally agreed. It's beyond me how some people manage to survive on a day-to-day basis. I also agree that the GSD case was poorly presented in my opinion. The dogs weren't being properly handled, that's clear enough to see, which effects the movement of the dog and the impression of structure. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> Yes, I have watched it Pawzk9, and have stated so a few times. I have alot of friends who have watched it. I don't think any of us walked away with the message that breeding should no longer ever be done. What I did walk away with is "Ask questions about the screenings and health of parents because not all breeders do this." kind of statement.


Do you mean to say that wasn't a message you'd ever gotten elsewhere? It's pretty common knowledge. I sure didn't see any mention of what breeders actually do for health (which is considerable and doesn't just benefit show dogs)


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

I would say it's common sense, but again, it seems like so many people lack common sense that it's not common at all these days. 

I think that the film was really the first to document that kind of a devastation firsthand in an attempt to wake people up.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> I would say it's common sense, but again, it seems like so many people lack common sense that it's not common at all these days.
> 
> I think that the film was really the first to document that kind of a devastation firsthand in an attempt to wake people up.


Much of the "devistation" they documented did not appear to be show bred dogs, but were presented as such.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

I know plenty of people with dogs that don't "appear" to be show bred but are from winning lines. Often it's those "appearances" that loan them to being sold as companions. Your point?

I didn't state my opinions or reactions in an effort to start a "type fight" with anyone. Just offering my opinion as such. Whether you agree with me or not isn't my problem. And as an add - I believe my spelling was correct.. not sure if you're trying to correct me or why you've quoted the word...

devastation - the state of being decayed or destroyed


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> I know plenty of people with dogs that don't "appear" to be show bred but are from winning lines. Often it's those "appearances" that loan them to being sold as companions. Your point?


That I believe the so-called "documentary" was an intentional misrepresentation on a number of levels. Usually, the variations between show quality and pet quality in carefully breed dogs are subtle. Many of the dogs shown as suffering various maladies clearly were not.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Given the prevalence of SM in CKCS's I tend to disagree with you. And I would call that a "devastating" condition.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> Given the prevalence of SM in CKCS's I tend to disagree with you. And I would call that a "devastating" condition.


Like I said before, in order for propaganda to get believed it must contain at least an element of truth. Much of the "documentary" was sensationalistic BS that people are willing to buy, and which - like much of what Jemima Harrison says - is patently dishonest.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Like I said before, in order for propaganda to get believed it must contain at least an element of truth. Much of the "documentary" was sensationalistic BS that people are willing to buy, and which - like much of what Jemima Harrison says - is patently dishonest.


Hmm? Would you admit that SM is a devastating condition? Do you have any idea the number of dogs it affects as a whole? How about the number of CKCSs? What kinds of studies have you read?

What about seizures and the genetic predisposition for epilepsy? How about cardiomyopathy? Or genetic predisposition to cancers? Diabetes? Hip dysplasia? The list goes on. 

The point is every breeder should be aware of the health concerns involved with their breed of choice, and every breeder should be responsible enough to screen their breeding pairs if such a screening exists for those particular conditions. Not to do so is not responsible breeding in my opinion. As is continuing to breed an animal that has proven to whelp unhealthy, unsound animals. To turn a blind eye and scream sensationalism does nothing but say to me that this is a person who is more concerned about ego than the welfare of the animal and the animals that are produced from that.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> Hmm? Would you admit that SM is a devastating condition? Do you have any idea the number of dogs it affects as a whole? How about the number of CKCSs? What kinds of studies have you read?
> 
> What about seizures and the genetic predisposition for epilepsy? How about cardiomyopathy? Or genetic predisposition to cancers? Diabetes? Hip dysplasia? The list goes on.
> 
> The point is every breeder should be aware of the health concerns involved with their breed of choice, and every breeder should be responsible enough to screen their breeding pairs if such a screening exists for those particular conditions. Not to do so is not responsible breeding in my opinion. As is continuing to breed an animal that has proven to whelp unhealthy, unsound animals. To turn a blind eye and scream sensationalism does nothing but say to me that this is a person who is more concerned about ego than the welfare of the animal and the animals that are produced from that.


I think that SM is a hole that CKCS breeders have to carefully breed their way out of. It's a problem for sure, but it's one breed. I do think that most quality breeders (the ones Jemima is gunning for) screen for CHD. Same with cardiomyopathy. I also know that there are no tests available for predispositions for cancer, diabetes and epilepsy. The best you can do is study pedigrees and try to eliminate risks without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And possibly hold out your breeding stock until they have reached an age where early onset problems can be eliminated. 
The only epileptic dog I owned was from the shelter and I'm pretty sure he wasn't bred for either show or work. He was a very sweet dog though, and I gave him the best life I could.
I've never turned a blind eye to bad breeding practices. But sensationalism IS about the only thing "Pedigreed Dogs Exposed" is. It preys on people's fears and ignorance of breeding practices.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

I'll give you cancers and epilepsy as freebies since cancers depend on environmental factors as well, and seizures can absolutely be idiopathic. Diabetes in dogs is hereditary. Just as a scenario, if I bred a litter of puppies and two years later it's surfaced that one or more dogs I've produced is diabetic, I would be concerned enough to test glucose levels and pancreatic function in the breeding pair and alert other owners who may have puppies that may have come from either dam or sire to watch for any symptoms.

To me for SM to reach the prevalence it has in the CKCS breed is a statement that not enough was done in the first place, people weren't paying enough attention. If an owner came to me with a screaming dog it would absolutely be a red flag. If it didn't occur to me at first that it was neurological, it would certainly raise concerns about temperaments, and the producing dogs I was using.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

I just read something, believe in canine chronical that AKC health foundation and I believe it was the Goldens health foundation are funding a 1 million dollars research project on cancer.

You can not test for something that there isn't a genetic marker for it. Hence why the test for HD isn't always definitive of what the parents will produce, excellent to excellent has still produced low scores, low scores have produced high.

We have just about found the marker for HOD in weims, there is a general location she just needs more time to find an exact.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> I'll give you cancers and epilepsy as freebies since cancers depend on environmental factors as well, and seizures can absolutely be idiopathic. Diabetes in dogs is hereditary. Just as a scenario, if I bred a litter of puppies and two years later it's surfaced that one or more dogs I've produced is diabetic, I would be concerned enough to test glucose levels and pancreatic function in the breeding pair and alert other owners who may have puppies that may have come from either dam or sire to watch for any symptoms.
> 
> To me for SM to reach the prevalence it has in the CKCS breed is a statement that not enough was done in the first place, people weren't paying enough attention. If an owner came to me with a screaming dog it would absolutely be a red flag. If it didn't occur to me at first that it was neurological, it would certainly raise concerns about temperaments, and the producing dogs I was using.


Idiopathic in seizures just means that no other cause (organ malfunction, brain tumor, disease process etc.) can be found. Idiopathic epilepsy IS the hereditary stuff. Problem is, there's no test for it and it may be polygenetic, which means you can have genes which contribute, but until you accidently get the wrong combo, you don't have epilepsy. On your scenario, say you produce a puppy who gets diabetes at age six. By that time the parent dogs may have produced other litters, and if the male is well-known may have several litters on the ground. So yeah, test for it in those dogs. If they aren't diabetic, do you still pull them from the breeding program because one relative was? If they are good dogs who may carry a gene for a disease (there's probably not a dog alive who doesn't have SOME defective genes) do you just throw all their excellent qualities in the dumpster? Especially if you have a limited gene pool? There are a lot of questions to ask and answer. And different people may answer them differently and still not be wrong. I have known breeders (not just recently) who have dead-ended lines that they'd been developing for years when a hereditary disease rears its ugly head. And I've known others who work on strategies to breed around it. Neither is wrong.

Honesty and disclosure is important though. I'm sure there are breeders who try to hide problems, but generally they get outed. The breeders with longevity are the ones people feel they can trust. If they can't be trusted, word gets around. The thing is, when you persecute all breeders for the sins of a few, you really aren't promoting open communication about these issues, and may drive more problems underground. Though I still think the best of the breeders (who should have somehow been represented in the expose) will be trying to do the right thing, no matter how difficult we make that for them. Or just get disgusted with people who don't understand the issues involved attacking them and go find something else to do with their time and money. And if you care about purebred dogs, that's a loss.

I don't really know that much about SM. Not my breed and I tend to research things that I have need to know. I do think quality CKCS breeders screen for it. When you have a problem that is endemic in a breed, and you feel that the breed is worth preserving, it may take more than a single generation to irradicate that problem. A lot more. And while it's not a breed I'm intimately familiar with, my guess is, it's the good breeders who are leading the way to trying to get rid of the problem, and pressure from Jemima's propaganda mill has nothing to do with it, except make their job a lot harder.

Here's a really nice little article by a lady I know on the various considerations that must be part of the difficult job of breeding. http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_bad_genes.htm
You will notice that the article was originally published in the 1990s. So obviously breeders have been thinking about this for many years before Jemima decided to make a movie about it. You also will notice that the article comes from a website for a VERY active genetics institute sponsored by Aussie enthusiasts that contributes in both funds and samples to important research. I bet Jemima doesn't do that.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

You're right that idiopathic means no other cause can be found. That's why one idiopathic seizure is generally classed as such, an idiopathic episodic seizure. I would venture that a dog who had one isolated episodic seizure there was probably more factors involved, but lots of things are classified as idiopathic if no underlying cause can be found, it doesn't mean there wasn't actually an underlying cause. Generally when epilepsy is used as a term it refers to chronic seizures and neurological dysfunction as a prolonged condition. 

If I had a dog who tested high normal for blood glucose and had had previous litters in which he had produced one or more diabetic dogs, you'd better believe I'd get ahold of the owners of dogs he had produced. In different pairing other dogs might be fine, but a dog with high glucose readings is a dog with pancreatic dysfunction. It's a simple blood test for owners, not a $750 MRI. 

I guess I don't get why so many people are offended by the film if they understand genetic and hereditary conditions like this exist. If you know they exist you probably understand that you should do a bit of research into finding a reputable breeder who health tests and studies pedigrees and doesn't lie about the health of their dogs. When a breeder says, "Yeah, I've had one or two cases of x in my lines over 20 years, but I've put corrective measures in place to ensure that x condition is no longer a problem in my line." I feel better about that than a breeder who says, "No I've been around for 20 years and never produced a sick dog of any kind ever." which seems like a fallacy to me and my logical thinking brain. But some people must be fooled by that I guess. 

But I personally go out lots of place with my two purebred dogs, and I've never been attacked for having them being purebred. Which might be relative, I live in a kind of blue collar town among the hunters and fisherman who generally have purebred sporting breeds. I can understand if you've been browbeaten about it why you might be a bit defensive. Maybe that's why I don't see the piece as "propaganda" because generally the people I've talked to about it have moderate views. 

I'm not here to vilify or rip on the woman who produced the piece, I really honestly know nothing about her. I think the point of the piece was to point out to the general puppy aquiring population (a good deal of them are incredibly ignorant) that genetic conditions exist and what they should look for in a breeder, not to educate breeders in any way as they should already know about the conditions.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> If I had a dog who tested high normal for blood glucose and had had previous litters in which he had produced one or more diabetic dogs, you'd better believe I'd get ahold of the owners of dogs he had produced. In different pairing other dogs might be fine, but a dog with high glucose readings is a dog with pancreatic dysfunction. It's a simple blood test for owners, not a $750 MRI. .



Did anyone suggest that you shouldn't? I'm not sure what your point is.



ADalla said:


> But I personally go out lots of place with my two purebred dogs, and I've never been attacked for having them being purebred. Which might be relative, I live in a kind of blue collar town among the hunters and fisherman who generally have purebred sporting breeds. I can understand if you've been browbeaten about it why you might be a bit defensive. Maybe that's why I don't see the piece as "propaganda" because generally the people I've talked to about it have moderate views.
> .


Do you show your purebred dogs?


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

I used to show my IWs and I used to handle Tibetan Terriers for a breeder that I knew pretty well. I don't show my purebreds now. It's been a little while since I've been active in conformation but I still poke in at shows to watch and chat.

I'm not really sure what your point is?


----------



## Sybille (Oct 5, 2011)

Look how these dogs walk! If they are allowed to have offspring, chances are very high that they pass this weakness in the hind quarter on to the next generation. So sad! I grew up amongst GSDs, my mother was actually one of the first women allowed in our local club (shows my age), she did Schutzhund, tracking etc. with her dog and he won and his back was straight not sacking down towards the rear. Then breed standards changed and a lower rear end became the new fashion until hip dysplasia was literally bred into the GSD. Made her angry, makes me angry. It will take a lot of work, changed breed standards and common sense to safe this breed and make it what it was at one time. Anybody here really believes that one of the dogs in that footage could run, for example, an agility course??? There is a reason that the GSD is not often seen, at least in my part of the world, in agility, his poor body can't do the job anymore. I remember seeing GSDs as a child doing obstacle courses, that was before agility was actually invented, and no dog in that show could do it. So sad ...


----------



## Sybille (Oct 5, 2011)

Some more info http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2942 Seems that judges not get retrained in order to enable them to distinguish a sound dog from one that is not structurally sound.


----------



## Settican (Apr 5, 2008)

Sybille said:


> Then breed standards changed and a lower rear end became the new fashion until hip dysplasia was literally bred into the GSD.


The rear angulation in GSDs has nothing to do with HD in the breed. The 3 West German showline GSDs that I've owned have all been graded A+ hips (highest grade where I live), I actually know of very few GSDs with HD - granted, almost all of the ones I do know come from reputable breeders who health check their dogs.

One of my previous girls, Peone, was very good at agility:


----------



## Valentino (Oct 13, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> I too would like to know why this has been brought up again. A site search brings up three different threads about GSDs and "Pedigree dogs Exposed" which is one of the worst and most biased documentaries out there...


3 threads out of the thousands? oh no! the horror!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Valentino said:


> 3 threads out of the thousands? oh no! the horror!


Beyond just searching this stupid "documentary" there is a new GSD every five seconds and thousands of posts about how "ruined" the breed is.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Valentino said:


> 3 threads out of the thousands? oh no! the horror!


If you have something to say, say it. I'm prepping for a 3000 mile move, care to continue sniping with nothing constructive?


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Sybille said:


> Some more info http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2942 Seems that judges not get retrained in order to enable them to distinguish a sound dog from one that is not structurally sound.


This is the kind of thing I thing would help with regards to judging, and eventually snowball into what is brought to the ring/bred for the ring.

At least the KC seems to want to take it's head out of the sand and admit there is a problem.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I believe that breeders who have health tested thier dog for years before this ever aired have never had their heads in ther sand. IF you would read you'd see that at least ONE (quite possibly more) of the dogs that was represented as being unhealthy was in fact health tested and found to have NO health problems what so ever. You'd also understand that many of the GSDs in the documantary were in fact being poorly handled. The person you're supporting has made false statements and yet you still stand behind the documentary. You have NO desire to be educated, only to start a controversy and stand behind statements that have in fact been disproven. 

The reason a GSD have the angles they do is to achieve this gait 



 
Too straight in the hock and the reach of the rear paws becomes limited, too much angle and they overreach, the rear has a purpose and here are the CORRECT angles according to the Standard with Ideal rear proportions


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ADalla said:


> I used to show my IWs and I used to handle Tibetan Terriers for a breeder that I knew pretty well. I don't show my purebreds now. It's been a little while since I've been active in conformation but I still poke in at shows to watch and chat.
> 
> I'm not really sure what your point is?


My point is that it is the dog show culture that is currently under attack. Not just random people who own purebreds (at least for now) so your experience in not being attacked is not necessarily relevant to this situation.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> My point is that it is the dog show culture that is currently under attack. Not just random people who own purebreds (at least for now) so your experience in not being attacked is not necessarily relevant to this situation.


 
The dog show/purebred breeder culture has been under attack for ten years now, It's discusting how people are treated for choosing purebreds from a reputable breeder over a shelter or rescue dog.


----------



## GrinningDog (Mar 26, 2010)

Forgive me if this has already been answered, but I have a question. I don't know the German shepherd breed particularly well, so I'm using layman's terms here.

What is the purpose of the sloped back and low hindquarters? I hear they improve the gait, but how so? Does it make the dog faster, better able to leap? How does it improve a shepherd's ability to perform as it was developed to? I see a typical show shepherd and I wonder, "Why?" I don't mean this in a rude way. I would like to be educated here. 

And I'm talking about a properly structured show shepherd. I realize there are unhealthy, exaggerated specimens of the breed, but I'm wondering about an "ideal" show shepherd.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Kirsten&Gypsy said:


> Forgive me if this has already been answered, but I have a question. I don't know the German shepherd breed particularly well, so I'm using layman's terms here.
> 
> What is the purpose of the sloped back and low hindquarters? I hear they improve the gait, but how so? Does it make the dog faster, better able to leap? How does it improve a shepherd's ability to perform as it was developed to? I see a typical show shepherd and I wonder, "Why?" I don't mean this in a rude way. I would like to be educated here.
> 
> And I'm talking about a properly structured show shepherd. I realize there are unhealthy, exaggerated specimens of the breed, but I'm wondering about an "ideal" show shepherd.


There was an interesting article on Terrierman's blog recently. Now understand first off, that Terrierman has some pretty far out there stances, and is very anti-show dog, and anti-AKC. That said, this was an article written a couple of decades ago by a coursing Saluki enthusiast. Basically the point was that you can't say that a dog can work by looking at a dog. You can tell that a dog can work by working the dog. And many of the things justified in the show ring as being correct form for a working dog may be in error. I suspect that is true of the GSD. I know I have a couple of HGH videos and none of the dogs who are actually doing the work look like American showline dogs. That said, it's not important that I like the style of dog that is shown. It's not important that the people showing that style of dog think my dogs are lovely (though they suit me). The fact is, being extreme doesn't always equal being unhealthy. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having a dog you like to look at.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I suspect that is true of the GSD.


You don't need to suspect it. It's very much true. But it goes BEYOND the physical



> I know I have a couple of HGH videos and none of the dogs who are actually doing the work look like American showline dogs.


This is in part because there are only TWO HGH teachers in the entire united states. Ulf Kintzel, in New York, and Geary Loff, in New Jersey. Geary learned from Ulf, and Ulf is straight from Germany.

Both men are shepherds for their livelihood.

I have had the pleasure of meeting with Geary, and seeing his Beaucerons work.



> The fact is, being extreme doesn't always equal being unhealthy.


VERY true!



> What is the purpose of the sloped back and low hindquarters?


The drop in the hindquarters itself has no purpose. That is a side effect (As it were) of elongating the upper and lower thigh bones, which increases the rear angulation of the dog.

The purpose for those longer bones (and they CAN get too long!!!!) is to create a broader, more open, more efficient gait. The dogs are supposed to do a maximum amount of work with a minimum amount of effort.

If the gait is more open, more elastic, and the dog has more reach both fore and aft, the dog has to take less steps as it is working the border of the flock to keep them contained.

The German Shepherd Dog is supposed to overreach in the rear...the rear foot should pass the imprint of the forefoot. Because of this, you will see the rear foot passing on the inside and outside of the front foot.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> This is in part because there are only TWO HGH teachers in the entire united states. Ulf Kintzel, in New York, and Geary Loff, in New Jersey. Geary learned from Ulf, and Ulf is straight from Germany.
> !


The videos I saw were not from within the US


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

There is a fine line, though, with how much rear a dog can have and still be functional LONG TERM.

A dog that gaits off its hocks with the hocks going completely fast is not going to hold up past age 4 or 5 tending sheep. That's the reality. That age may even be a generous estimate. Gaiting off the hock is going to affect the knees, feet, and spine, because the shock from the gaiting is not being properly absorbed.

A dog with too much rear may also have a beautiful, open, roomy gait, but they lose agility, power in the gallop, and their jumping ability decreases. Doesn't mean a dog can't jump at all (while I HAVE seen dogs so extreme, they'd be lucky to make it over an 8" agility jump, they are not the norm in the grand scheme of things), just means it can't jump as high (or far) as dogs with less rear.



> The videos I saw were not from within the US


Ah...well then, I wouldn't expect to see American line dogs, lol


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> I believe that breeders who have health tested thier dog for years before this ever aired have never had their heads in ther sand. IF you would read you'd see that at least ONE (quite possibly more) of the dogs that was represented as being unhealthy was in fact health tested and found to have NO health problems what so ever. You'd also understand that many of the GSDs in the documantary were in fact being poorly handled. The person you're supporting has made false statements and yet you still stand behind the documentary. You have NO desire to be educated, only to start a controversy and stand behind statements that have in fact been disproven.
> 
> The reason a GSD have the angles they do is to achieve this gait
> 
> ...


 I'm not referring just to hip dysplasia, but to long term soundness/holding up under work. Kind of like what was alluded to in a post above this about excessive rear/sheep tending. So a dog could have no dysplasia, yet have excessive rear, and still end up with problems due to their conformation. Breeding for that does a disservice to the dog, as would rewarding it in the ring.

Have the breed standards (like the link you posted) changed in the last 30 yrs? The dogs I remember from the 70's growing up didn't look like they do now...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

spotted nikes said:


> I'm not referring just to hip dysplasia, but to long term soundness/holding up under work. Kind of like what was alluded to in a post above this about excessive rear/sheep tending. So a dog could have no dysplasia, yet have excessive rear, and still end up with problems due to their conformation. Breeding for that does a disservice to the dog, as would rewarding it in the ring.
> 
> Have the breed standards (like the link you posted) changed in the last 30 yrs? The dogs I remember from the 70's growing up didn't look like they do now...


They have been the same since before WWII with only minor changes (mostly in specifics of what qualifies as a DQ such as whites and long coats) . Watch the video I posted, that gait is efficient and prevents wear and tear, it is not extreame but is what you want to see on a GSD.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Have the breed standards (like the link you posted) changed in the last 30 yrs?


Nope. Not beyond excluding whites. Nothing in the standard changed. An "extreme" dog (and he was, for his time) came along, and the rest is history.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Xeph said:


> A dog with too much rear may also have a beautiful, open, roomy gait, but they lose agility, power in the gallop, and their jumping ability decreases. Doesn't mean a dog can't jump at all (while I HAVE seen dogs so extreme, they'd be lucky to make it over an 8" agility jump, they are not the norm in the grand scheme of things), just means it can't jump as high (or far) as dogs with less rear.


This is what I tend to see in agility, for what it's worth, and it really does give GSDs a bad name. There aren't a lot of GSDs in agility, at least not in Excellent, so they are more noticeable...and a lot of them struggle over their preferred height jumps (4" lower than measured jump height), and have a sort of weird rollicking gallop that lacks power, and their pasterns flatten out so fast at just a run that they can't be absorbing much shock at all as they land off a jump. 

I have seen some nicer GSDs on course, who seem to move well at the trot but also are able to navigate an agility course (at preferred height) and look like they feel good doing it, but about 3/4 of the ones in this area fit in the first category. 

Obviously not all dogs are built to be agility superstars, but IMO if a dog can't actually physically get through a course (standard or preferred height, not picky) without demonstrating physical discomfort, that doesn't say much for their ability to navigate life. And that is not a GSD-specific comment by any means. Of course there are exceptions...an Irish Wolfhound isn't going to be comfortable getting through a standard agility course, but that's a matter of scale...supersize the tunnel and space the weaves more, and in general they seem quite fine with it all.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't disagree. Mirada navigates the course well, as a decent amount of power in her gallop, but I can admit that sometimes as she finishes the extension on her gallop, her hocks do this...weird sort of thing I can't describe. It's not terribly extreme or concerning, but I notice it. It's more because of her loose ligaments than her rear, but I know what you mean.

She has no trouble clearing 20" jumps. She can do some 24's, but we haven't trained on that height much yet. We will a bit, since you're supposed to practice higher than your competition height, but right now we're working on her form (needs a bit of tweaking).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Ah...well then, I wouldn't expect to see American line dogs, lol


Neither would I. I would expect to see dogs who were physically suited to do the work. The dogs I saw didn't have as extreme an angulation. No banana backs either. One has to wonder what von Stephanizt's vision was for the breed he created, and what he would think if he could come back and see today's German shepherds.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Von Stephanizt was the one who brought in dogs with more angulation in the 20's because the backs were getting too straight to do the desired work if I remember correctly.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I would expect to see dogs who were physically suited to do the work


Y'know, there are some AmLines out there that could physically do the work if people bothered to try, or had the resources available (not everybody does).

The passive aggressive shots at my breed are getting really old.

Every couple months there's one of these stupid threads about how GSDs are "ruined".

If they were ruined, people wouldn't be buying them, and the GSD wouldn't be the #2 dog in registrations in the AKC, and the world's most popular breed of dog (it has been in the top 5 breeds around the world for the last few years as well).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Von Stephanizt was the one who brought in dogs with more angulation in the 20's because the backs were getting too straight to do the desired work if I remember correctly.


Which doesn't mean the amount of angulation some of today's dogs have would help them function as working dogs. I still wonder what he would think if he saw some of today's GSDs. Then, I've always been more of a preservationist than an "improver."


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Too straight in the hock and the reach of the rear paws becomes limited, too much angle and they overreach, the rear has a purpose and here are the CORRECT angles according to the Standard with Ideal rear proportions


You know, that dog in the illustration is stacked in the typical GSD stance. But I betcha he could stand foursquare and not be sickle-hocked.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I still wonder what he would think if he saw some of today's GSDs.


There's no point wondering. I'm sure, like any human being, he'd hate some of the dogs, and love others. I don't think he'd be any more enamored with over the top prey monsters than he would be with hock walking wuss balls.

I'm sure there are plenty of breed creators from way back when that wouldn't be pleased how their breed turned out.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Y'know, there are some AmLines out there that could physically do the work if people bothered to try, or had the resources available (not everybody does).
> 
> The passive aggressive shots at my breed are getting really old.


If you are referring to me (since you are quoting me) let me say, I think there's not a better dog in the world (well, maybe ONE breed - LOL) than a structurally sound, moderate, well-temperamented GSD. And I've met quite a few. I do think many of the GSDs I see in the show ring are past extreme - even, probably, dogs you think look moderate. You say there are AmLines out there that could do the work if people bothered to try, or resources were available? Well, then let them prove it. Resources are largely about expending them for what you want to do. People who can afford to campaign a dog have resources, they just choose to use them in a different way. And that's okay. It's also okay (sort of) if they claim their dogs are the perfect model of functionality even if it appears to others that they are not, and they haven't proven that claim to themselves or others. The thing about selecting breeding stock by what wins in the conformation ring is that there is a constant shift in that selection towards dogs who are more and more extreme. Extreme is eye-catching and gets noticed. When one dog who is extreme for his time does a lot of winning, pretty soon you have a lot of people with dogs who are more extreme, and the bell-curve shifts so that first extreme dog is moderate. I've heard people say that Manhattan wouldn't even get a glance today. Not sure if that is so or not. But in ALL breeds, if you don't prove the dog for work in the real world too, and that proof is not valued by breeders, there is nothing to modify that shift towards more and more extreme type. Testing your dog in the real world (or a test that simulates the real world) is at least somewhat of a reality check. 

I think Jemima Harrison and PDE is a crock. It's highly biased, highly edited and highly sensationalistic. But, like every piece of propaganda, it will only strike a chord with people IF they can find an element of truth in it. Somewhere between JH and kennel/breed blindness, there is a place where people recognize that there is more to breeding good dogs than just winning rosettes. That's a fact. I think there are a lot of responsible breeders in all breeds who recognize that. But it's not universal. And if we don't want the general public against us as dog enthusiasts, we have to look at that element of truth and think about how we can work on it, before people take away our right to work on it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> People who can afford to campaign a dog have resources, they just choose to use them in a different way.


The people who can afford to campaign their dogs so much and so successfully are also those that have dogs that are on the more extreme end.

Resources are not just about what you WANT to expend them on, but what you're ABLE to.

I'd LOVE to do tending work with my bitch! But there is nowhere within an acceptable drive of doing such (I'm looking at 7-8 hours going ONE way if I wanted to do HGH or general tending with my bitch). There's a woman available about an hour and a half away that has shepherds that she does A Course with. Not even close to the same, but that's what's available.

Right now my financial resources do not allow me to participate, but I'd love to go when we have the means again. 

In Virginia, we were doing a 6 hour round trip for herding. It cost an arm and a leg, and in a way, I regret it, because that's money I could have saved instead. But I was trying to prove my bitch, partially because the (ignorant as a whole) public thinks she can't do the work, which is not true.

What is also moderate for a GSD is not for an Aussie....but these dogs are not Aussies, or any other breed, and so when rear angles get compared (whether people are saying it or not, it IS happening), the point is entirely lost. A GSD rear is not an Aussie rear is not a Belgian rear is not a Briard rear (they've got some angles on them too, btw).

I posted 4-5 pictures of GSDs early in this thread, and not a single person commented on them. Posted videos too. Got no comments.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Here's an AKC Ch that I showed. Nice dog.

People made fun of him


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Here's an AKC Ch that I showed. Nice dog.
> 
> People made fun of him


I like his look much better than most of the other dogs posted.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I like him too, but he's now been retired from showing because people said such nasty, hurtful things to his owner.

He may be returning to us on a permanent basis for breeding and performance.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> The people who can afford to campaign their dogs so much and so successfully are also those that have dogs that are on the more extreme end..


Yes, I've noticed.



Xeph said:


> What is also moderate for a GSD is not for an Aussie....but these dogs are not Aussies, or any other breed, and so when rear angles get compared (whether people are saying it or not, it IS happening), the point is entirely lost. A GSD rear is not an Aussie rear is not a Belgian rear is not a Briard rear (they've got some angles on them too, btw).
> 
> I posted 4-5 pictures of GSDs early in this thread, and not a single person commented on them. Posted videos too. Got no comments.


Actually, I did comment. I did not comment about your dog, but since you want comments, I think she is quite extreme. Especially so in the puppy picture with the down pasterns and sickle hocks. I am aware that GSDs are not Aussies, and that the structure is not supposed to be the same. I like a well angulated dog. I don't like an over-angulated dog and realize that what would be over-angulated for an Aussie might be about right for a GSD. I'm not that dumb, having been in dogs and watching dogs shown for well over 30 years. The one picture that I thought looked about right for a GSD was the drawing that Carla contributed on ideal angulation. But you know what? That's not what I see in the German Shepherd conformation ring. Not at all, even if it is what is the ideal.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Xeph said:


> The people who can afford to campaign their dogs so much and so successfully are also those that have dogs that are on the more extreme end.


Because if you're going to spend many thousands of dollars on your show dogs, you're going to follow the ring fashions that allow you to win the most. Otherwise a ton of that investment is going to go down the drain from losses plus everything else that you have to put up with for promoting a less-popular style of dog. People who show true hairless Chinese Cresteds have to deal with the same BS, which is why real hairless Cresteds are slowly going extinct, and have been for the past 25 years. The high-pressure competition environment of the show ring has had negative effects on many breeds, because it's a sad fact that the most competitive people will always make compromises to win in the end, even if they're 'small' ones. But those 'small' compromises eventually add up over time and can sweep through an entire breed (because people who want to win will emulate what other winners are doing), and change it radically in ways the breed founders and breed standard never intended. New people to the breed are educated that the current style of show dog is the 'most correct' regardless of what historic type of the breed was originally (and are generally penalized by their peers if they challenge the status quo), so the trend just keeps snowballing. People who speak out against it get accused of just having 'sour grapes' because their dogs don't win, but anyone who's honest with themselves knows that there are legitimate reasons behind the disillusionment a lot of people have with the current model of competitive conformation shows.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Because if you're going to spend many thousands of dollars on your show dogs, you're going to follow the ring fashions that allow you to win the most.


You don't need to tell me that, I'm quite aware of it, and it blows...but as I said earlier in the thread, unless the people that really want things to change think it's worthwhile to donate to kennels that want to see change as well, very little will change over time, most likely.

The smaller kennels that want to change things only have money for so much, and, in the grand scheme of things, will get no where.

And according your definition, Pawz, 99% of the GSD breed is sickle hocked. Heck, you'd probably consider Strauss sickle hocked from the looks of it. That said, I'm done. I'll take my overdone sickle hocked bitch and continue doing as I'm doing with her, because at least she DOES get worked.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Xeph said:


> You don't need to tell me that, I'm quite aware of it, and it blows...but as I said earlier in the thread, unless the people that really want things to change think it's worthwhile to donate to kennels that want to see change as well, very little will change over time, most likely.
> 
> The smaller kennels that want to change things only have money for so much, and, in the grand scheme of things, will get no where.


The majority of registered AKC GSDs are pet-bred and working-bred. People already vote with their dollar. Pet folks aren't going to donate money to show kennels who produce dogs that they don't like the look/temperament/health of, and frankly show breeders aren't entitled to their money no matter how upstanding their intentions are. The hard fact is, selling pet-quality dogs is a pet-market-driven affair, and the main market for extreme show dogs is just other show dog kennels. So you're right, the issue will get nowhere (in show circles) until the show community itself decides that enough is enough. Realistically though, the people at the top have no incentive to change, because the system keeps rewarding the status quo. 

The 'blame' for this or any other flaw in the show-dog world cannot be laid at any one club/organization/breeder's door, which is the main reason why it's so difficult to both talk about AND address in any meaningful way. There are many nuances and elements at play that reinforce and perpetuate these issues.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Realistically though, the people at the top have no incentive to change, because the system keeps rewarding the status quo.


Yup...just sick of hearing all the whining about my breed from people that do not own one, clearly do not want to own one, and are really only interested in making a stink about other people. Don't like show lines? FINE. DON'T GET ONE! But lay off those that do have show lines, and would like to make their way towards a more moderate animal. It's not going to happen in a freaking day. 

The GSDCA is having all sorts of trouble right now because they keep losing members. When the people at the top are told why they are losing members (and they are told frequently) it goes unheard (read, ignored).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If that's really how it's going, it might be nice to respond to the comments "yeah, we know there's a problem, some people are working on moving toward a more moderate animal, thanks for your concern" rather than "what!?!? You don't know anything! There's no problem, that's how they're supposed to look, you ignorant fool!" (Not saying anyone here has done that but it seems to be the standard response among GSD people). Might help on the PR front.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Forgive my ignorance, but what _is _sickle hocked? 



Pawzk9 said:


> Which doesn't mean the amount of angulation some of today's dogs have would help them function as working dogs. I still wonder what he would think if he saw some of today's GSDs. Then, I've always been more of a preservationist than an "improver."


Pawz, I think you've brought up some great points well worth thinking about, especially to me as a pet dog owner and working line enthusiast. 

Here is my perspective - I am also more of a preservationist, less an improver. Don't fix what isn't broken, right? However, I feel that may be the problem itself. As I'm sure you understand, a dog can become "broken" from overwork, if the dog has the mind for it but not the body. 

The father of the breed, von Stephanitz, created this dog as an all around utilitarian working dog. His goal was not conformation, but working ability. That is what should be preserved in order to maintain the essence of the German Shepherd Dog, but that should not exclude the breeding of the ideal working body. A dog cannot be a good working dog if he only possesses the drive (or if he possesses the wrong drives or no threshold) but not the body. Form may follow function, but how many have the 200-300+ sheep to use their Shepherd on? HGH style tending, unfortunately, does not create enough of a demand for German Shepherds perfectly suited for the job, and is no longer the function many German Shepherds are bred for. I think that is why we will not likely be seeing dogs being worked in HGH with the structure of a showline dog. 

If all else was equal, I can freely admit that I would pick solid show line dog over my working line dog, if I were looking for a tending dog. I have seen these show line dogs with beautiful reach and powerful movement easily glide across the ground. My working line boy is energetic, driven, persistent, and I have recently been told that his movement is not altogether poor. The show line dogs I've met personally could do laps around him, because they cover distance so effortlessly in their gait, it is undeniable that their bodies would take a day of work much more easily than my dog would. 

Now, I have seen plenty of extreme dogs, as they are nowhere near uncommon. But I see these dogs among show lines, among pet lines, and among working lines. The extremes in the latter two are just as harmful to the breed as a whole, but somehow I almost never see them being mentioned. That does not make any of the above mentioned "okay". 

The problem that we face is that it is just never "all else equal"... and I think that creates a lot of bias (intentional or unintentional) against a certain line or type of dog, because of various associated stigmas. A lot of that bias, and maybe some theoretical idealism, I think we really could do without... but now that's me being idealistic!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I like him too, but he's now been retired from showing because people said such nasty, hurtful things to his owner.
> 
> He may be returning to us on a permanent basis for breeding and performance.


Well, the conformation ring (especially in some breeds) ain't a place for sissies. "If you can't beat em, join em" only perpetuates problems. If you (general you) want to win and the only way you think of to beat the over-done dogs is to out do them, you're just contributing to the problem. Popular dogs are popular because they win. And because people rush to buy what wins. If people who want something better for their breed refuse to buy dogs like that, things would change. Not quickly, but eventually. It's like that because so many people choose to support it being like that.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Here's an AKC Ch that I showed. Nice dog.
> 
> People made fun of him


This is what I am not understanding. Why would they make fun of him? IMO, he is the soundest looking dog that anyone has submitted pictures of. He represents, IMO, what a GSD should look like. Of course my opinion isn't worth anything ...

Did the judges disqualify him? What was the reason they were making fun of him? Was he proven outside the ring at all? I mean... he was a champion, so it all couldn't have been bad, right?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Equinox said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what _is _sickle hocked?


According to our friends E. M. Gilbert Jr. and T. R. Brown:

"A sickle hock is one where the hock is bent at more than 90 degrees to the ground when viewed from the side. This curved hock gives the appearance of a sickle used to cut grain, therefore the term 'sickle hock.' Often this over-angulated hock cannot be flexed in action. The hock angle does not change while the leg is moving or the dog is unable to use the joint; therefore, a sickle hock is of no benefit."


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

I know absolutely squat about GSDs.. but do his pasterns look normal? They look a bit downed to me?

Sorry if I'm wrong.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Did the judges disqualify him?


A judge cannot disqualify a dog with no disqualifying faults unless the dog attempts to bite said judge.

He was made fun of for being "soft", for not having enough angles (btw, people think Mirada should have more rear too, and I've said more than once she is my limit...I'd still prefer less, but how she is is tolerable for me).

People said he wasn't worthy of his championship (BS).

His pasterns are normal. Just long. Rada's got crappy pasterns. The show lines tend towards softer pasterns.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

ADalla said:


> I know absolutely squat about GSDs.. but do his pasterns look normal? They look a bit downed to me?


According to the link that Carla posted earlier... 








http://www.gsdca.org/Noframes/standard/Illo14.htm


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> A judge cannot disqualify a dog with no disqualifying faults unless the dog attempts to bite said judge.
> 
> He was made fun of for being "soft", for not having enough angles (btw, people think Mirada should have more rear too, and I've said more than once she is my limit...I'd still prefer less, but how she is is tolerable for me).
> 
> ...


Who is 'people'? Other breeders? handlers? spectators? Why does it matter what they say if they aren't the judge in the ring? 
He got his Ch. that is worth something... pulling a sound and tested dog from the ring due to social pressure doesn't seem to make much sense. (not saying thats what happened; I'm just trying to understand)


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Shaina said:


> According to our friends E. M. Gilbert Jr. and T. R. Brown:
> 
> "A sickle hock is one where the hock is bent at more than 90 degrees to the ground when viewed from the side. This curved hock gives the appearance of a sickle used to cut grain, therefore the term 'sickle hock.' Often this over-angulated hock cannot be flexed in action. The hock angle does not change while the leg is moving or the dog is unable to use the joint; therefore, a sickle hock is of no benefit."


Thanks for the explanation, Shaina. Will try to wrap my head around it - I usually am no good without visuals, but what you posted is a well worded description.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> spectators?


The spectators generally are breeders and handlers. And when nasty things get back to the owner, the owner doesn't want to continue showing their dog only to have it ridiculed.



> Why does it matter what they say if they aren't the judge in the ring?


Because people have feelings.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

+two said:


> Who is 'people'? Other breeders? handlers? spectators? Why does it matter what they say if they aren't the judge in the ring?
> He got his Ch. that is worth something... pulling a sound and tested dog from the ring due to social pressure doesn't seem to make much sense. (not saying thats what happened; I'm just trying to understand)


Try having a dog you invested so much money, hope, time, and energy in, a dog you are damn proud of, your absolute pride and joy... completely ridiculed and verbally torn to pieces by some very big name breeders in the GSD show world. Including, perhaps, people you had a great deal of respect for. Yes, you need thick skin to deal with the people of the dog world, but that would take take its toll on a lot of people.

Not saying that's what happened either, nor am I saying it's "right", but I don't see how such a situation would make no sense to you.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Not saying that's what happened either


I'll tell you that that is exactly what happened. And the owner of the dog was told her reputation was harmed by having that dog in the ring.

I work very hard with Mirada, and have invested a lot of time, money, and hope into her, only to have her be ridiculed and for assumptions to be made, because she's not from a big name kennel, and I am a nobody in the breed.

Not every person in this breed has tons of kennel runs that they're happy to just throw dogs in and forget about until it's show time.

Many of us have PETS that also happen to be show dogs. While I DO know a couple of bigger kennels that loves each and every one of their dogs, and these breeders do have a couple of house pets, they're not the norm I've experienced. Most large kennels are out for the win, and losers are sold off with no real regard for the dog.

That dog I posted is somebody's pet, and somebody loves him and thinks the world of him.

Would you put something you love in the position to be made fun of? Could you do it very long? The dog doesn't know it's being mocked, but the owner sure does, and that hurts.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Xeph said:


> I'll tell you that that is exactly what happened. And the owner of the dog was told her reputation was harmed by having that dog in the ring.
> 
> I work very hard with Mirada, and have invested a lot of time, money, and hope into her, only to have her be ridiculed and for assumptions to be made, because she's not from a big name kennel, and I am a nobody in the breed.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think you said it really well here



Xeph said:


> Because people have feelings.




I think I have pretty thick skin, not a lot of things bug me, and when they do, I feel pissed rather than hurt. Yeah, I can call my dog all sorts of names, but if someone puts him down maliciously, especially at an event where I wanted to show him off, I'm not going to take it well, plain and simple. Nothing confusing about that...


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I'll tell you that that is exactly what happened. And the owner of the dog was told her reputation was harmed by having that dog in the ring.
> 
> I work very hard with Mirada, and have invested a lot of time, money, and hope into her, only to have her be ridiculed and for assumptions to be made, because she's not from a big name kennel, and I am a nobody in the breed.
> 
> ...


I was in a simliar situation awhile back. My dog in question is certainly not show-bred, but he was being mocked and made fun of, not because of his conformation or his training, but simply because of who he is, and the breed he is. I happen to think the world of this dog, and his breed, size, shape, etc doesn't matter. But apparently to some, it does, and is laughable if a dog isn't of a "cool" breed or isn't a show-bred animal that's beautiful to look at. It hurt like hell, and I was more than pissed off. After a few weeks of this BS, I retaliated to the persons hurtful comment with a comment that wasn't so nice on my part, and the snotty remarks stopped. I don't fool myself into thinking that the people involved in this clique stopped talking about my dog altogether though, so I opted out of the group. Oddly enough, these people think my show-bred dog is Gods gift to dogs, even though he (in all honesty) doesn't have half the heart or work ethic as my "less desirable" dog does. My dog had no idea he was being mocked as you said, and greeted these people as if they were his best friends on the planet and that alone was enough to get my hackles up about all the crude and unnecessary comments about him. I couldn't deal with the show world, and I respect the people who can go out and show their dogs and HAVE FUN doing so with their best friend. My trialing attitude is "Who gives a crap if we get an NQ or a 1st with a perfect score? If we NQ, I still wouldn't trade <MY dog for the top winner of the day, so why worry and stress about winning?"


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Shaina said:


> According to our friends E. M. Gilbert Jr. and T. R. Brown:
> 
> "A sickle hock is one where the hock is bent at more than 90 degrees to the ground when viewed from the side. This curved hock gives the appearance of a sickle used to cut grain, therefore the term 'sickle hock.' Often this over-angulated hock cannot be flexed in action. The hock angle does not change while the leg is moving or the dog is unable to use the joint; therefore, a sickle hock is of no benefit."


I associate sickle hocks with motion. Most dogs with a lot of rear will have sickle hocks just standing around. But get them moving and they can extend the hock joint (pictures below). I was in a Conformation class just tonight, and a 5 month old Rottie pup has sickle hocks when he stands. He hasn't quite learned to stack yet, but when he's moving on the down and back he actually shows very nice extension of the hock. Conversely, a Hound pup in the same class had perpendicular hocks in a stand, but didn't extend the joint on the move. I would fault the later with sickle hocks, but not the former.

You can see a lot of sickle hocks in Terriers. When they move, they'll kick up their heels. The only motion of the rear leg happens at the hip and knee. Sometimes this is the construction of the joint, but sometimes it's the dog's way of compensating for more rear drive than front reach. The rear is "writing checks the front can't cash." 

This is an electronic magazine, which is darn annoying, but it has the most illustrative pictures I can find: http://www.showsightonline.com/
Go to "Essential Elements," page 76. 

First, look at the gorgeous Toller.

Now look at the two terriers in the lower right corner. The Kerry Blue is showing full extension of the hock. I was very surprised to see this, because when I think of sickle hocks, Kerry Blues are the very first breed that comes to mind. The Norfolk above him is not extending his hock completely. He has extended it somewhat, and I would want to see the dog in motion before I condemned him with sickle hocks. If the dog's leg is in that phase of the trot, and the hock is still perpendicular to the ground, he's got sickle hocks.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Equinox said:


> Try having a dog you invested so much money, hope, time, and energy in, a dog you are damn proud of, your absolute pride and joy... completely ridiculed and verbally torn to pieces by some very big name breeders in the GSD show world. Including, perhaps, people you had a great deal of respect for. Yes, you need thick skin to deal with the people of the dog world, but that would take take its toll on a lot of people.
> 
> Not saying that's what happened either, nor am I saying it's "right", but I don't see how such a situation would make no sense to you.


It happens. Sometimes it happens because the person doing the talking is an arrogant SOB who has at some point forgotten how decent people behave. It can also be fear. Obviously at least a few judges found a more moderate dog worthy of a CH. It's probably not a trend some people would want to see continue, so if they can convince people that kind of dog is an embarrassment, and the people are soft enough to believe it, that's less competition. Usually if someone is "kind" enough to tell you your dog is a piece of dookey, it's because he isn't.

One of my favorite memories of when I was showing conformation was a big time famous breeder telling a newbie (pointing at my dog) - you see that? I don't have to have dogs that look like that because I don't need to work livestock! The major satisfaction of the day came when a male of my breeding took WD and BOW over her class dogs and bitches and his sister that I was specialing took BOS (over her bitch special). She did take BOB with her male special, but I was heard to proclaim loudly "not bad for a bunch of old stockdogs!" It would never occur to me to be devastated by someone like that question the quality of my dogs. I know what I like. But then, being a top conformation kennel never was high on my bucket list - even back then. People who take that sort of thing to heart seldom last in that game. The judge, BTW was an all arounder who has judged at Westminster


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

ADalla said:


> I know absolutely squat about GSDs.. but do his pasterns look normal? They look a bit downed to me?
> 
> Sorry if I'm wrong.


No, he's not down, that's the stack.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

It would be smart to read the breed standard before making comments. The GSD is desired to have pasterns that are 25 degrees off vertical.



> Forequarters
> The shoulder blades are long and obliquely angled, laid on flat and not placed forward. The upper arm joins the shoulder blade at about a right angle. Both the upper arm and the shoulder blade are well muscled. The forelegs, viewed from all sides, are straight and the bone oval rather than round. The pasterns are strong and springy and angulated at approximately a 25-degree angle from the vertical. Dewclaws on the forelegs may be removed, but are normally left on. The feet are short, compact with toes well arched, pads thick and firm, nails short and dark.


Also quite interesting that the dog Xeph posted looks very much like the image of the GSD on the AKC breed standard.

http://www.akc.org/breeds/german_shepherd_dog/

All dogs have faults. If you show a dog, it is going to be critiqued ringside. Ringside or to my face critiques or remarks would never keep me out of the ring, or stop me from showing a dog.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well maybe the people who are tired of being attacked because of PDE just need a thicker skin, then, too.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Also quite interesting that the dog Xeph posted looks very much like the image of the GSD on the AKC breed standard.


Yes he does (the dog on the standard, BTW, is Hatter)! And it's one of the reasons I very much like that dog. He's very, very "old school" in his structure.



> If you show a dog, it is going to be critiqued ringside


Telling somebody their dog looks like **** is NOT a critique. A critique discusses the faults AND virtues of the dog. Telling somebody their reputation has been harmed and will be further harmed is not a critique, it's just plain nasty.


As a step away from structure, his temperament is great, and he is AWESOME to live with!


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

If anyone said to me that "your dog looks like $#i+" to me at a dog show, I would call a bench hearing. Small people who make such rude remarks would not stop me from competing with my dog. However, it would gain someone an interview with the field rep.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I'll tell you that that is exactly what happened. And the owner of the dog was told her reputation was harmed by having that dog in the ring.
> 
> That dog I posted is somebody's pet, and somebody loves him and thinks the world of him.
> 
> Would you put something you love in the position to be made fun of? Could you do it very long? The dog doesn't know it's being mocked, but the owner sure does, and that hurts.


If he's her pet and she loves and thinks the world of him, why would he be coming to live with you permanently? I have no problem with someone selectively and carefully rehoming a dog who can't meet their expectations. But, by george, if a dog is my pet and I love and think the world of him, if he can't be successful in *my* preferred sport, we'll find something he can do that he likes to do, and continue our close relationship in another way. That said, I suspect there are other reasons why she is being told not to show the dog. Maybe some people are afraid he might win.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> No, he's not down, that's the stack.


I'm not sure how a stack would effect pasterns. That said, they look tighter than a lot of GSDs.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

The problem is, Red, that Reps are generally not at the specialties, where the most crap is talked :-/

That said, I've never had to call for such a thing, so I don't know what the proper procedures are.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> It would be smart to read the breed standard before making comments. The GSD is desired to have pasterns that are 25 degrees off vertical.


FTR, I didn't "make comments".. I clearly asked a question. I stated I wasn't familiar with the breed and asked if that was normal. Thanks BTW for answering.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

I followed a link from the latest closed thread to here, and decided since I am not concerned what anyone says about my GSD's I'll post pics for for critique and for folks to contrast different builds.

These two are both rescues.

First Kaya... She could possibly be a mix but doesn't really show any other breed I can see and was picked up by animal control as a pregnant stray, is only 45lbs, and her hind end is tight without the 90^ angle from her hock and her back legs pretty straight with I guess a tight hamstring. It shows when she runs and such her back legs have little reach forward, I dunno how much of a "stack" you could even put her in..










Next is Hope, she was a BYB or puppy mill brood mom until her owner decided to stop feeding and caring for her and was seized by the SPCA from her kennel close to death. She's right at 75lbs. She is more typical in the hind end than poor Kaya, with more angles in her back legs with way more reach both fore and aft but her rear end is not low, front legs too short maybe?. 

I do not think she is capable of that gliding flying trot they like they show in the ring, I think she has the reach, but her trot seems quite bouncy to me in comparison. But she can easily clear a 4' fence. Or leap over the back of my sofa from a standstill and can stand up on her hind legs and bounce up and down, which many GSD's I have seen have trouble with or don't have power in the rear to do. She also runs down my fence line about 3 football fields long racing cars that go by all day, and typically hits the end of the fence 7-8 car lengths ahead of the car, the girl can flat out move and leap like a deer. The only dog I have seen outrun her was a greyhound about her size.

This is probably as close to a stack as I have a photo of.










Or maybe this..









Anyway I can pose Hope better and take a pic if anyone is interested, but I figure it's another data point some of the more knowledgeable people here can usefully use to compare and contrast to some of the show dog pics that have been floating around.

What confuses me is folks talking about more power. I have seen Hope playing with a couple of GSD's in the dog park that were more the typical lower in the back end types that seem more typical of what I see in show rings, and when they did this..









The other dog immediately was pushed right back onto it's hocks or more often all the way back on it's rump.. usually ending with the owners breaking up the play pretty quick as Hope was making the play pretty one sided. Didn't seem powerful at all to me, like there was no leverage for the muscles to use due to the bone lengths and such or something. Would seem like a possible disadvantage in tending to me, as tending also includes defending against loose dogs and such doesn't it?


----------



## MightyAchilles (Dec 20, 2011)

Kaya and Hope are beautiful!! When I am ready to get Achilles a sister, which I am already set on getting a GSD, I can only hope .... that she is as powerful and beautiful as Hope.


----------



## MightyAchilles (Dec 20, 2011)

Would also just like to throw in there that it absolutely makes me cringe when somebody has a mean comment or makes fun of something that somebody else is completely excited and thrilled over. People can be so mean... life is too short for that BS.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Well I don't care if folks criticize those two in their physique, neither is what I would call a correct GSD..  I love em anyway but they might be helpful in comparing builds is all. Personally I think Hope could use a bit more power in her hips and legs than she has, maybe a little longer front legs, her elbows up front look to me like they aren't quite right, and she may be a bit long in the back for her own good. 

She has also ruptured a disk or two in the middle of her back and been in severe pain I guess a little over a year ago, though she seems to have recovered fully now.

The biggest issue I have with her is that I just can't let her play with other dogs unless they handily outweigh her and have a good personality, or she just manhandles the poor dogs. She's not mean or aggressive, she just plays rough and gets carried away in that she doesn't know when to stop and seems oblivious to the other dogs cues of when enough is enough. Maybe she missed out on the part of puppy hood when dogs learn that, or she just can't control her drives..


----------

