# Are pedigree dogs being ruined by exagerated breed standards?



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Ok... moving over here so as not to hijack another thread.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

No, it's people breeding out of standard for fashion or out of carelessness. Yes, there are show breeders that breed for fashion and judges that allow it (I firmly believe this is whats happened to Pekes and English Bulldogs) however when the breed is kept WITHIN the standard then form should follow function. This is why smart breed clubs are resistant to ANY change in the standard to allow out of standard dogs to compete.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

http://www.myspace.com/video/bordercollie19/documentary-bbc-pedigree-dogs-exposed/44215931

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2688984.htm (Australia looks into whether the show above had merit)

http://www.dogtron.com/book/continuing20.html (read the Breed Standards section)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

you cant go "pedigree dogs are being ruined by exxagerated breed standards" when it's only certain breeds that that statement can apply to.

for example..this is a quote from my breed's standard



> Above all, the American Pit Bull Terrier should appear to be an all around athlete. His body is called upon for speed, power, agility and stamina. *He must be balanced in all directions. Too much of one thing, robs him of another. In his ideal form, he is a thing of beauty. *


tell me where the "exaggeration" is? You can't paint the entirety of the purebred dog world based on the actions of a few select breed clubs. that's fallacious and bad thinking that will hurt the ones trying to do it right.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree that very responsible breeders certainly want the best for their breed, including healthy long lived dogs. The question is whether breeding for show conformation is responsible. 

Right now there is a huge debate going on about border collies. Most "responsible" breeders do not even want their dogs regeristable with the AKC. 

I am not really attacking the breeders. I am attacking the industry. Problem is, that if you want to be seen as a good breeder... you need championship lines. Champion lines are due to champion ribbons. Ribbons come from shows. Shows set standards. Just how resonable are these standards is the question!

It is form over function. It may make a pretty dog, but not one that is hardy nor good for the work for which it was designed.

And when they change the standards for pitts so that they need to be 36 inches tall and weigh over 120 pounds... will you STILL agree? Or would you have to say that they had ruined the breed? Pitts were not SUPPOSED to be that big... until they ARE supposed to be that big.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I agree that very responsible breeders certainly want the best for their breed, including healthy long lived dogs. The question is whether breeding for show conformation is responsible.
> 
> Right now there is a huge debate going on about border collies. Most "responsible" breeders do not even want their dogs regeristable with the AKC.
> 
> ...


bs. it's not the industry as a whole. it's specific people within a select number of breeds that are causing the problems. the show standards in pits...as exemplified by the first post i made in this thread..enforce an ideal of BALANCE. you can't paint the whole industry with a negative brush based on the actions of a few. that's the same thing as saying all black people are criminals because you know a black guy that got arrested. it's fallacious thinking.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I agree that very responsible breeders certainly want the best for their breed, including healthy long lived dogs. The question is whether breeding for show conformation is responsible.
> 
> Right now there is a huge debate going on about border collies. Most "responsible" breeders do not even want their dogs regeristable with the AKC.
> 
> ...


Industries are nothing without people. Are there people in conformation that are wrong? Yes. Is that true of any thing across the board? Yes. Where people are involved generally someone will do something wrong. However your weird suspicion that because of some unscrupulous people then every thing will go to hell is bizarre. Why in the world would they change the Pit standard so drastically? They would be met with insane resistance and if they did change it? People would leave. Not everyone would just go "Oh, well, all right. The standard now says this so I guess I will just do that." You'd also have to start filtering in new breeds to make a Pit any where near that size, so they would no longer even be eligible to compete in conformation so that whole scenario doesn't make sense. 

And it's been said a million times, but as a size note, shows and such don't set standards.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

> And when they change the standards for pitts so that they need to be 36 inches tall and weigh over 120 pounds... will you STILL agree? Or would you have to say that they had ruined the breed? Pitts were not SUPPOSED to be that big... until they ARE supposed to be that big.


that's already been tried...*and failed.*


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

First of all, it's NOT the AKC that sets the standard, it's the individual breed clubs and it's VERY hard to change the standards within the clubs. 

The reason that some breed clubs don't want registration with the AKC is because Puppy mills (and show mills) use that registration on uneducated buyers that think AKC=Quality breeder. The fact is , the AKC is ONLY garaunteeing that the dog is PUREBRED, not well bred or within standards. There are plenty of dogs that have Conformation championships and hold working titles.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

I will need to do some heavy research to post links of how breeds have changed.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pleas don't post discussion from other forums... (copywrite issues)


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

And a message board for a reference is kind of silly. I mean, can I link you to posts I made and tell you to research them?


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Not even a link? Really? Cannot see how a link is a copywrite issue. But ok. Can I post the links that were posted there then?



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> And a message board for a reference is kind of silly. I mean, can I link you to posts I made and tell you to research them?


If they have links in them that are relevant I would think you should! No reason to repeat yourself after all.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Fuzzybutts said:


> Not even a link? Really? Cannot see how a link is a copywrite issue. But ok. Can I post the links that were posted there then?
> 
> 
> 
> If they have links in them that are relevant I would think you should! No reason to repeat yourself after all.


I scanned through it and most links/pictures are dead. And it's a pretty empty discussion. A lot either copy and pasted or written by the poster. I don't know where I repeated myself either, I've only posted in this thread twice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Also, the EB standard has NOT changed other than to add a few coloration faults, from http://www.thebca.org/ilstd.html

_The first Bulldog Standard in England was drafted in 1864 and adopted in 1875. The Bulldog Club of America was formed in 1890 utilizing the English standard. In 1896 a standard was adopted by the Bulldog Club of America. It was revised in 1914 to declare the Dudley nose a disqualification. In 1976 the Dudley nose disqualification was redefined as a "brown or liver colored nose." *The standard was reformatted in 1990 with no changes in wording.*_

Here is the Official Standard for the GSD

http://www.gsdca.org/Noframes/standard/IllStan1.htm



Fuzzybutts said:


> Not even a link? Really? Cannot see how a link is a copywrite issue. But ok. Can I post the links that were posted there then?
> 
> 
> 
> If they have links in them that are relevant I would think you should! No reason to repeat yourself after all.


Posts are owned by the forum they are posted on, so yes, it is a copywrite issue.

http://www.dogforums.com/attention-all-new-members/82908-forum-rules-read-before.html

Members are asked to respect the copyright of other users, sites, media, etc.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I scanned through it and most links/pictures are dead. And it's a pretty empty discussion. A lot either copy and pasted or written by the poster. I don't know where I repeated myself either, I've only posted in this thread twice.


I meant that if you wanted to post links to previous posts of yours you should... it will save you time so that you do not need to post the same thing here you posted in the past. I tend to play fair and rarely am snippy... so sorry you misunderstood that.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

For the record, my crappy American show line dogs can and do herd. So do many, many, many others. I could link you to several in fact.

The Sable Moose went right from the show ring the herding arena one day. Had a blast.

Go fig.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Here is one for Poms that admits that they were once 30# dogs and were originally shown at around 20#. That is very different than todays poms that ate around 4#!

http://www.pommania.co.uk/pomhistory.htm

And that is form a breeder!


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

I have never understood why some people think "the standards" or "the akc" are to blame for health problems that arise in purebred dogs. Health and temperament problems are the result of breeders who have made the decision to breed for looks over health. Some breeds have suffered the effects of these breeders more than others, but it's not "the industry" who is responsible -- if it were, wouldn't all breeds be showing this to some degree? It's the people that get involved with the breeds who are to "blame" for the problems in the first place... but it's also those people who are involved with the breeds that are to "blame" for funding genetic research in order to be capable of testing for and eliminating breed-specific problems in their stock. 

We can't undo the past. It's a nice sentiment, but we can't go back and say "whoops, all those years when we were breeding dogs at healthy adult ages before having access to the technology for hip dysplasia x-rays sure did increase the rates of HD in several dogs... sorry! our bad! we take it back." All we can do is use the technology we have now to produce healthier animals and work to eliminate defects.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

And the Dachshund standard has been around since.. lord 1870? I can't remember, but it has been a hot minute. The biggest stink is over color.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i want AT LEAST a show history. if not anything else..that is at least indicative of the breeder taking an interest and getting out there to do something with his dogs...other titles are prefferred...but if nothing else..id like some show titles on a bitch i want as a dam and on the sire


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree and applaud this. (Although AKC herding trials are nothing like actual herding trials)
I do not dispute it.
I go back to my original debate question... and should have been more explicit. I mean CONFORMATION show standards.

I have little problems with the standards needed for field, obedience, agility, etc champions! (Although the scent discrimination part of obedience trials are a bit unfair to some breeds of dogs IMO)



CricketLoops said:


> I have never understood why some people think "the standards" or "the akc" are to blame for health problems that arise in purebred dogs. Health and temperament problems are the result of breeders who have made the decision to breed for looks over health.


But doesn't the conformation ring ENCOURAGE this?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

yes conformation show standards...in pit bulls that tells you

if the dog is structurally sound. (very important)
the breeder shows interest in working with their dogs as opposed to breeding pet dogs willy nilly.
the dog is cool enough to be around other dogs as opposed to being hot tempered.
the dog has the ability to accept training, accept attention by strangers and deal with large crowds and strange stimuli


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Fuzzybutts said:


> But doesn't the conformation ring ENCOURAGE this?


You talk about "the conformation ring" like it is a single entity with a uniform agenda. It's not.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Yes, Poms have been downsized, as have all Toy breeds (the pug also started out much larger) Here is hte progression of the standard

http://www.americanpomeranianclub.org/1916.htm
http://www.americanpomeranianclub.org/1935.htm
http://www.americanpomeranianclub.org/1960.htm
http://www.americanpomeranianclub.org/1980.htm
http://www.americanpomeranianclub.org/1991.htm
http://www.americanpomeranianclub.org/standard.htm (current)

The wording has changed somewhat, but the size has stayed the same since it was set in 1935



> The average size of the Pomeranian is from 3 to 7 pounds, *with the ideal weight for the show specimen being 4 to 6 pounds*. Any dog over or under the limits is objectionable.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

> But doesn't the conformation ring ENCOURAGE this?


no. some breed clubs do. the show ring itself does not.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Fuzzybutts said:


> But doesn't the conformation ring ENCOURAGE this?


No?

too short


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

sassafras said:


> You talk about "the conformation ring" like it is a single entity with a uniform agenda. It's not.


I know it now seems that way. As I said, I should have been more specific. 
I should have said:
Are pedigree dogs being ruined by breed conformation standards? 

Better?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Oh and Conformation is only one title you can put on your dog, for me I like to see other titles as well (Obedience, ScH ect) especially if I'm buying a dog for a specific purpose. Good example is my Angel's parents and grandparents who not only have International conformation titles, but ScH titles in several countries as well as health testing and stable temperments.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no. some breed clubs do. the show ring itself does not.


I disagree. I think it is in the ring that problems arise. Its like in the Quarter horse world in the western pleasure world. Horses with lower noses and worse shuffleing gaits started winning. Now we have horses that are peanut rollers and cant take a sound step. This is because the horses that won shuffled and were peanut rollers. (I don't want to start an arguement about this, but it was a good example.)

Like the Quarter Horse world, the Dog show world prizes exaggerated specimens of breeds, then those dogs that have those traits that the winning dog had as well as the winning dogs are bred to pass along more of the exaggerated traits. This may start out as a slight difference that pleased that judges eye but it grows into something bigger. 

Therefore I do believe that the show ring does have as much blame in this as the breeders do.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I know it now seems that way. As I said, I should have been more specific.
> I should have said:
> Are pedigree dogs being ruined by breed conformation standards?
> 
> Better?


and again...not all of them. not even a majority of them. to paint them all with the same brush based on the actions of a few is fallacy.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I know it now seems that way. As I said, I should have been more specific.
> I should have said:
> Are pedigree dogs being ruined by breed conformation standards?
> 
> Better?


No, because it's still not true. If you want to pick a breed or two and discuss particularly what in their conformation standards constitutes "ruining" them, then we might actually have a productive discussion.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the ring that problems arise. Its like in the Quarter horse world in the western pleasure world. Horses with lower noses and worse shuffleing gaits started winning. Now we have horses that are peanut rollers and cant take a sound step. This is because the horses that won shuffled and were peanut rollers. (I don't want to start an arguement about this, but it was a good example.)
> 
> Like the Quarter Horse world, the Dog show world prizes exaggerated specimens of breeds, then those dogs that have those traits that the winning dog had as well as the winning dogs are bred to pass along more of the exaggerated traits.
> 
> Therefore I do believe that the show ring does have as much blame in this as the breeders do.


you're overgeneralizing just as much as Fuzzybutts.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the ring that problems arise. Its like in the Quarter horse world in the western pleasure world. Horses with lower noses and worse shuffleing gaits started winning. Now we have horses that are peanut rollers and cant take a sound step. This is because the horses that won shuffled and were peanut rollers. (I don't want to start an arguement about this, but it was a good example.)
> 
> Like the Quarter Horse world, the Dog show world prizes exaggerated specimens of breeds, then those dogs that have those traits that the winning dog had as well as the winning dogs are bred to pass along more of the exaggerated traits. This may start out as a slight difference that pleased that judges eye but it grows into something bigger.
> 
> Therefore I do believe that the show ring does have as much blame in this as the breeders do.


This is true, it's not the standard, it's the judges not ADHERING to the standard and breeders trying to breed to what a particualar judge likes instead of the breed club taking action (sanctions) against the judge for not adhering to standard.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> This is true, it's not the standard, it's the judges not ADHERING to the standard and breeders trying to breed to what a particualar judge like


And Bingo was his name-o!


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you're overgeneralizing just as much as Fuzzybutts.


And your under-generalizing. (not a word but you know what I mean... I hope.)



cshellenberger said:


> This is true, it's not the standard, it's the judges not ADHERING to the standard and breeders trying to breed to what a particualar judge likes instead of the breed club taking action (sanctions) against the judge for not adhering to standard.


 I agree, in QH western pleasure the rules clearly state that the horse should have forward movement and defines the headset just a clearly but judges like the stumbling and tripping.

Which is why I respond to in dogs:



> But doesn't the conformation ring ENCOURAGE this?


with an outstanding yes. with the emphasis on the encourage and the conformation ring.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> And your under-generalizing. (not a word but you know what I mean... I hope.)


no..im not. i look at it as a case by case basis. as it should be.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no..im not. i look at it as a case by case basis. as it should be.


I disagree, it shouldn't be looked at as a case by case basis.

Taking it by a case by case basis doesn't change anything. Grand scale changes things.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree, it shouldn't be looked at as a case by case basis.
> 
> Taking it by a case by case basis doesn't change anything. Grand scale changes things.


wrong again. case by case basis because that way you avoid trying to fix situations that arent broken. and are free to concentrate on the ones that ARE.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

The issue is it isn't every judge in the ring that "encourages" the changes. It's a select few. So you will have a few "bad apples" but that does not mean the whole industry is at fault.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree, it shouldn't be looked at as a case by case basis.
> 
> Taking it by a case by case basis doesn't change anything. Grand scale changes things.


Disagree, it is a case by case basis if caught early and action is taken, once it gets established it becomes very difficult to address at all. Once established the public starts accepting it as what the standard should be. It's hurting breeds and damaging the image of good breeders.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> wrong again. case by case basis because that way you avoid trying to fix situations that arent broken. and are free to concentrate on the ones that ARE.


Why don't you stop saying people are "wrong"? I am not wrong just because I don't agree with what you are saying.

I understand if you don't disagree, but don't say I'm wrong every time I don't agree with you.

And I think with certain breeds, it already has gone too far, and should be taken grand scale.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Miranda16 said:


> The issue is it isn't every judge in the ring that "encourages" the changes. It's a select few. So you will have a few "bad apples" but that does not mean the whole industry is at fault.


Exactly, but if a certain judge becomes more predominant then the problem spreads.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Why don't you stop saying people are "wrong"? I am not wrong just because I don't agree with what you are saying.
> 
> I understand if you don't disagree, but don't say I'm wrong every time I don't agree with you.
> 
> And I think with certain breeds, it already has gone too far, and should be taken grand scale.


yeah...*with certain breeds.* so even you admit to it being a case by case issue.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I know it now seems that way. As I said, I should have been more specific.
> I should have said:
> Are pedigree dogs being ruined by breed conformation standards?
> 
> Better?


No. There is no single "breed conformation standards" entity. Each breed's standards are defined by their club. Some are very probably better than others, but I'm not going to pretend that I know enough about all breed standards to paint them all with the same brush.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> wrong again. case by case basis because that way you avoid trying to fix situations that arent broken. and are free to concentrate on the ones that ARE.


No... what is being discussed are EXAGERATED breed standards. I never said that a standard that says the dog should be "well proportioned" was in question.

For instance, bulldogs (sorry... but they stand out). Up until recently the breed conformation said they should have an "enormous" head. That has since been changed to "large" due to the problems it was causing with no end in sight.

I gotta go and do not want anyone to think I am running away. 

So far everything has been pretty civil. I do hope it stays that way. Although I often have to agree to disagree... I can do so with total respect and even some concessions to the other persons point of view. I hope others can as well as I do like a GOOD debate now and then and find you can often learn a lot from them. I am honestly not trying to start an actual argument!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Fuzzybutts said:


> No... what is being discussed are EXAGERATED breed standards. I never said that a standard that says the dog should be "well proportioned" was in question.
> 
> For instance, bulldogs (sorry... but they stand out). Up until recently the breed conformation said they should have an "enormous" head. That has since been changed to "large" due to the problems it was causing with no end in sight.
> 
> ...


then say so. this is the first time in this thread that you have done that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Fuzzybutts said:


> For instance, bulldogs (sorry... but they stand out). Up until recently the breed conformation said they should have an "enormous" head. That has since been changed to "large" due to the problems it was causing with no end in sight.


Incorrect! Breed standard for the bulldog is Exactly the same as it was in 1875



cshellenberger said:


> http://www.thebca.org/ilstd.html
> 
> _The first Bulldog Standard in England was drafted in 1864 and adopted in 1875. The Bulldog Club of America was formed in 1890 utilizing the English standard. In 1896 a standard was adopted by the Bulldog Club of America. It was revised in 1914 to declare the Dudley nose a disqualification. In 1976 the Dudley nose disqualification was redefined as a "brown or liver colored nose." *The standard was reformatted in 1990 with no changes in wording.*_


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

But boxers USED to have longer noses!
ukboxerdogs - 1964 British Boxer Dog Champions

And now?
http://www.mickeyhayden.com/boxerdogs/hannahshowrecord.html
Glenauld Boxers Dog Kennels - Boxer Dogs - Show Dogs, Puppies, Stud, Champions, Boarding Kennels - Lanarkshire, Scotland



cshellenberger said:


> Incorrect! Breed standard for the bulldog is Exactly the same as it was in 1875


Terribly sorry... it only changed in england (yea for them!)
http://www.bulldogbreedcouncil.co.uk...g_Standard.htm


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

And again, the standard, with the rewrites

http://www.harvelboxers.com/Standard.html

and illustrated Head proportions

http://www.americanboxerclub.org/illstand3.html

The dog in the second links nose is too short according to the standard. That's not the standards fault, it's the fault of the ring judge that awarded the dog.

From the standard:



> *Muzzle* -- The muzzle, proportionately developed in length, width and depth, has a shape influenced first through the formation of both jawbones, second through the placement of the teeth, and third through the texture of the lips. The top of the muzzle should not slant down (downfaced), nor should it be concave (dishfaced); however, the tip of the nose should lie slightly higher than the root of the muzzle.





> The beauty of the head depends upon harmonious proportion of muzzle to skull. The blunt muzzle is 1/3rd the length of the head from the occiput to the tip of the nose, and 2/3rds the width of the skull. The head should be clean, not showing deep wrinkles


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

OK but using your own link:

1904 - The Head - The head should be dry throughout with as few wrinkles as possible. The cheeks should not be proportionately thicker than the upper part of the head but instead should appear laterally compressed. (The head should appear square from all angles and well defined in its exterior lines.) The parallel lines of the muzzle should run directly forward, not tapering, so that the front of the muzzle forms a broad, square surface. The forehead is arched, the back of the head is high, the break of the forehead (stop) viewed from the side is definitely marked.

Upper and lower jaws are definitely parallel; the teeth are at right angles to the jaws. The teeth of the lower jaw stand in front of the teeth of the upper jaw and fit so that the teeth touch each other when the mouth is closed, in the manner of a scissors. The corner of the eye, which lies halfway between the nose and the occipital bone, should not be pushed in under the forehead as it is in the Bulldog. 

1938 - HEAD - The beauty of the head depends upon the harmonious proportion between the muzzle and the skull. From whatever direction you view the head, whether from the front, from the top, or from the side, the muzzle must always appear in correct relationship to the skull. That means, it must never appear too small. The head should be clean neither showing deep wrinkles nor dewlap. Normally folds will spring up on the top of the skull when the ears are held erect. And they are always indicated from the root of the nose running downward on both sides of the muzzle. The dark mask confines itself to the muzzle and must be in distinct contrast to the color of the head so that the face will not have a somber expression. The muzzle must be powerfully developed in length, width and depth. It must not be pointed or narrow, short or shallow. Its shape is influenced, first, through the formation of both jawbones, second, through the placement of the teeth, and third, through the texture of the lips. 

1980 - HEAD - The beauty of the head depends upon harmonious proportion of the muzzle to the skull. The muzzle should always appear powerful; never small in its relationship to the skull. The head should be clean. Folds will normally appear upon the forehead when the ears are erect, and they are always indicated from the lower edge of the stop running downward on both sides of the muzzle. The black mask is confined to the muzzle and is in distinct contrast to the color of the head. Any extension of the mask to the skull, other than dark shading around the eyes, creates a somber, undesirable expression. When white replaces any part of the black mask, the path of any upward extension should be between the eyes. The muzzle is powerfully developed in length, width and depth. Its shape is influenced first through the formation of both jawbones, second through the placement of the teeth, and third through the texture of the lips. The Boxer is normally undershot. Therefore, the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper and curves slightly upward. The upper jaw is broad where attached to the skull and maintains this breadth except for a very slight tapering to the front The incisor teeth of the lower jaw are in a straight line, with the canines preferably up front in the same line to give the jaw the greatest possible width. The line of incisors in the upper jaw is slightly convex towards the front. The upper incisors should fit snugly in back of the lower canine teeth on each side, reflecting the symmetry essential to the creation of a sound, non-slip bite. 

2005 - The beauty of the head depends upon the harmonious proportion of muzzle to skull. The blunt muzzle is 1/3 the length of the head from the occiput to the tip of the nose, and 2/3rds the width of the skull. The head should be clean, not showing deep wrinkles (wet). Wrinkles typically appear upon the forehead when ears are erect, and are always present from the lower edge of the stop running downward on both sides of the muzzle.



So we went from a powerful and not too short muzzle to one that is blunt!
And we now have dogs with breathing difficulty!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm not sure what your objection to use of the word "blunt" is. Blunt simply means not sharp/pointy. How has it ruined boxers to describe their muzzles as blunt, and how is a blunt muzzle not powerful?

Every change in a breed standard is not for the worse. Some are, some aren't, some are just clarifications, and some are just semantics.


----------



## Porphyria (Jul 18, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Like the Quarter Horse world, the Dog show world prizes exaggerated specimens of breeds, then those dogs that have those traits that the winning dog had as well as the winning dogs are bred to pass along more of the exaggerated traits. This may start out as a slight difference that pleased that judges eye but it grows into something bigger.
> 
> Therefore I do believe that the show ring does have as much blame in this as the breeders do.


I think this is a really good description of what's going on. When show judges reward the extremes it provides breeders an incentive to breed for the extremes, until the general tendencies of the breed become more and more extreme. It's hard to assign blame to any one specific individual or entity because it's sort of a vicious cycle. But I don't think the specific kennel clubs/conformation venues are really at fault. I came across this blog post about an article put out by the FCI warning about judges rewarding dogs with extreme features. The blog is very opinionated and biased; I wish I could find the actual FCI article, but unfortunately the link in the blog doesn't work.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

Also _most_ of the breathing difficulty is not due to the muzzle itself but the closing of the nostrils. Dogs with slit nostrils have lots of difficulty breathing. Dogs with nice open nostrils usually have less issues.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The 2005 change is defining the head shape and proportions (which was never defined before) and the referral to wrinkles is the defined expression. The only things htat have chaged is that the standard has become more defined as to what's expected where as it was more vague.

Now, I have to go to work, I'll be back later to see how this thread has come along.


----------



## malamutelove (Dec 6, 2010)

I am going to back to the malamutes. 

Here is the standard now.....
http://www.akc.org/breeds/alaskan_malamute/

The AKC hasn't posted it but the range is still 65 pounds-85 pounds. My breeder told me some of the runts can be low as 58 pounds 

Here was the standard then 1938












Sorry if I am going back to what you wrote in that other post about large dogs getting larger. Giant mals are a fad and not a good trait in the mal. Not all breeds have gotten larger some have stayed the same. I really don't a bulldog is a very good example for the rest of the breeds.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Conformation shows are ONE TOOL for evaluating breeding stock. They measure how the dog fits the standard, which in most cases describes the most sound dog for the original function. They do not judge how well the dog will PERFORM in that function, simply how well they will appear to perform the function. As far as I know, no show breeder is going around saying their show Labradors are good at picking up ducks BECAUSE they are a show champion. Conformation is about soundness, form, not function.

Form and function are meaningless without each other. Let's say you are a farmer, and you somehow acquire an Ibizan Hound. Because you have the dog, you put him on sheep. And WOW! He's the best sheepdog you've ever had! Perfect instinct, needed no training, huge outruns, blah blah blah. Let's say you want to breed this dog in hopes of getting more great sheepdogs. One of two things are going to happen.

1) If you select for sheep herding ability, length of working time, and robustness, in a few generations you're going to end up with a dog that looks a heck of a lot like a Border Collie. That's just the most effective shape for that job, and it has been refined for years and years and years. Look at most of the sheepdogs, they're all roughly the same shape: slightly longer than tall, long coarse coat, medium size tending towards lightness.

2) If you select for sighthound shaped dogs with herding ability, you're going to find that your dogs don't have a very long working lifetime and are getting injured a lot. The sighthound shape is not conducive to herding. They don't have the stamina, they don't have the coat/skin for the climate that sheep flourish in, their bodies just don't do the job well, no matter what is in their skull.

By breeding with a physical standard in mind, you can produce sound dogs that will be sound their whole life, without waiting years and years to see if the dog is going to hold up. Is it perfect? No. But the dog with knees sticking out, straight shoulders, and a sway back isn't going to be sound as long as the dog with nice straight legs, well laid back shoulders, and a topline you could serve tea on. In the dog, everything is connected. The leg bone is connected to the hip bone. Change one thing, and other parts of the dog will compensate, but that compensation will take it's toll, and you'll see it in the dog's old age.

THAT SAID, I recently had a very good point pointed out to me. In the dog show, only two dogs per breed (one male one female) are going to advance towards their championship. The class of all equally great dogs is actually a worse problem than the class of equally poor dogs because only one of them can be rewarded. So the most "extreme" dog, the one that stands out the most from his fellows, wins the day. In theory, all of those equally great dogs should win equally often, but in practice it seems to sort out that the extremity gets rewarded more often, probably because it's more noticeable. So on that grounds, yes, the show ring does reward extremes. (Note that this is not THE STANDARD, which in many breeds stresses moderation and harmony. There are exceptions, notably among the toys.)

In short, buy a dog from a breeder who is breeding dogs that will fit the niche you want. My main concern is a sport dog, so I look for a breeder who is running agility with her dogs, because she knows what makes a good agility dog.


----------



## malamutelove (Dec 6, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> In short, buy a dog from a breeder who is breeding dogs that will fit the niche you want. My main concern is a sport dog, so I look for a breeder who is running agility with her dogs, because she knows what makes a good agility dog.


I like this


----------



## IWlover (Sep 4, 2009)

Yes, some of them are.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Yep, the nose on that second Boxer is WAY too short giving it a bulldog like appearance (specifically against what the standard states)

The first boy is fabulous looking!


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

For what its worth i have see some terribly put together dogs working. Mostly "farm dogs" who sure they could work really well but where burnt out by 3-4 years old.

Nothing should be taken as good or bad by itself. Its a whole picture you should be looking at.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> The reason that some breed clubs don't want registration with the AKC is because Puppy mills (and show mills) use that registration on uneducated buyers that think AKC=Quality breeder.


That may be true for some breeds, but not for all. In general, border collie breed clubs don't want registration with AKC, and their reasons have nothing to do with puppy/show mills.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

[Quote removed by moderator]

OH he's gorgeous! Look at that breadth of thigh! That top line! That NECK!


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Personally, I think that there are breeds that have been way too affected by judges liking a specific type. Then again, breed standards usually allow for personal interpretation, leading to... well, exaggeration. 
One of the most horrid 'transformations' I know of are German Shepherds, who went from this: 







(1911, female)







(1925, male) 
To this: 







(2009, male)

I've got these GSDs walking around in my neighborhood and can't help but be glad that my white swiss, a breed originating from white GSDs, has a nice level back like this (GSD left, WSS right): 









And this is not to say that I think all GSDs look like those... frogs (sorry to those who own such a GSD) ...because I know there are also GSDs out there who still bear resemblance to the original type. Our breed club has a page filled with stud dogs and wow, the difference between working and showbred GSDs is very obvious.

To each his own, I guess, but if the original type (the one the breed standard was based on) had been maintained, we wouldn't have had these exaggerated dogs around nowadays, with wobbly gaits and... unbalanced looking alltogether. But anyway, as long as show judges are human beings with their own tastes and opinions, because they are just that: human and not robots without opinions, we will always have certain dogs winning because the judge liked a specific type better and interprets the breed standard to his own liking for as much as it's possible. 

But that's just my opinion  Well, I'm off. Hope I haven't offended people, didn't mean to be rude. If I have, hereby my apologies. Oh, and I know American show types are different from German show types (as I believe the male above is with his banana back), but I don't really care for going into that discussion because imo whether you got this 







or this







, they both look deformed to me.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

You might want to compare your GSD shots where ALL the dogs are free standing, or stacked. Stacking that position does not make them deformed. I could stack my non GSD dogs in that exact same position and get the same shape.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

A few points...... 
MOST breed standards have changes VERY LITTLE.... What changes is interpretation of that standard. IMO the standard is not the END all when it comes to a breed. You have to take into consideration the breeds history and purpose. 

But changes happen..... Some are good and some are not. 
In 20 or thirty years, you will see more change in a young breed than an older breed. 

The important thing in a breed is can it do its job well. 

In my breed.....

Here is a dog from the 1930's (I have a young breed)
A famous early dog named Little Logic








Then a dog from the 1950's
Woolestons Blue Jack 









And then my dog.....









Some changes.... But not many......
Basic structure remains the same...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> they're both deformed.


Um.....no. While I do agree that a curvature of a spine is more of a deformity, quite honestly, you couldn't pay me to own the 1911 or 1925 dogs.

I can make Mirada look as extreme as Neeko (the American Showline you posted). She's not deformed, I just know how to stack a dog to make it look extreme. It is also easier to breed out excessive rear than it is a curvature of a spine.

Overangulated dogs are not correct, but I don't want a coyote either, thanks.

This is a BEAUTIFUL West German show line dog that I very much admire:









A beautiful American dog:


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But changes happen..... Some are good and some are not.
> In 20 or thirty years, you will see more change in a young breed than an older breed.
> 
> The important thing in a breed is can it do its job well.
> ...


Could you elaborate on this a little? Particularly change in ACDs, I can't see a lot of difference between those three dogs. Partly because of picture quality and angle, partly because I know jack about ACDs. 

As for GSDs, I think most of their problems come from the deep splits between lines. Breed splits are never okay. When you lose the original function, you lose the dog. Even if all that is left is stylized interpretations of Work (ie sport), that's better than nothing. One of the reasons the club Working Certificate is more important to me than a JH (which is roughly the same difficulty factor) is because it includes a tolling test. That's what makes a dog a Toller, and not a Golden with half his legs chopped off.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Could you elaborate on this a little? Particularly change in ACDs, I can't see a lot of difference between those three dogs. Partly because of picture quality and angle, partly because I know jack about ACDs.
> 
> As for GSDs, I think most of their problems come from the deep splits between lines. Breed splits are never okay. When you lose the original function, you lose the dog. Even if all that is left is stylized interpretations of Work (ie sport), that's better than nothing. One of the reasons the club Working Certificate is more important to me than a JH (which is roughly the same difficulty factor) is because it includes a tolling test. That's what makes a dog a Toller, and not a Golden with half his legs chopped off.


Sure.... 

Starting at the front, Merlin has a stronger muzzle vs a more pointed muzzle on the older dogs. This is neither good or bad. No cow would refuse to move for a dog with a more pointed muzzle dog. It is a preference thing. The stronger muzzles were there since the beginning. Bull Terriers were added in long before breed type was set. And you do not have to look far to see ACDs with more pointed muzzles. But the trend and preference is towards dogs with stronger Muzzles. 

Next look at the stops (the rise from the eyes to the top of the head.) Flatter stops have been bred for. There is a reason for this. A dog with a high stop that takes a kick from a bull to the head, may die.... A dog with a flatter stop, the hoove will glance off. I have seen this happen. Not to one of my dogs, they have never taken a kick to the head. This flattening of the stop have caused the heads to widen (the brain has to fit in there) and the ears to set out wider. 

The next thing is the eyes...... Little Logic is bug eyed, the Wooleston dog they stick out as well. A bug eyed dog will get an eye kicked right out. Now the eyes should be set in and well protected. 

These are one of the reasons Bull Terriers were added in during development. 

I am going to post a couple of pictures at the bottom of this post to give a visual on the heads. 

The next thing is the top lines. The two old dogs have very definate dips in the top line right behind the next. This is a heated topic..... Have you have ever seen an ACD "go flat" after heeling a cow? That dip in the top line is referred to as a hinge. Some people believe that it lets the dog get down quicker and flater. This could save the dog from a nasty kick. There have been lots of arguments over the hinge.... But it was written out of the standard a number of years ago and has largely been bred out. Frankly my dog goes flat just fine and he has not hinge. 

Then look at the rear...... Logic had a poor rear, can't see Jacks, Merlin has a strong rear.... Maybe Logic just was a bit weak in the rear......


And that is about it. 

This dog has a high stop and bug eyes..










This dog has a flatter stop and inset eyes.,


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Porphyria said:


> I think this is a really good description of what's going on. When show judges reward the extremes it provides breeders an incentive to breed for the extremes, until the general tendencies of the breed become more and more extreme. It's hard to assign blame to any one specific individual or entity because it's sort of a vicious cycle. But I don't think the specific kennel clubs/conformation venues are really at fault. I came across this blog post about an article put out by the FCI warning about judges rewarding dogs with extreme features. The blog is very opinionated and biased; I wish I could find the actual FCI article, but unfortunately the link in the blog doesn't work.


I found it for you. Has to do with Swedish Kennel Club. I guess they TOO have noticed a dangerous trend. It is here:
http://www.skk.se/Global/Dokument/Utstallning/special-breed-specific-instructions-A8.pdf



cshellenberger said:


> The 2005 change is defining the head shape and proportions (which was never defined before) and the referral to wrinkles is the defined expression. The only things htat have chaged is that the standard has become more defined as to what's expected where as it was more vague.
> 
> Now, I have to go to work, I'll be back later to see how this thread has come along.


But doesn't what you refer to as vagueness give a breeder a bit more leniency and therefore let them breed what may be a heathier pup that is not so specific instead of one that has inherited defects but is more perfect to type?
(hope that made sense - tired and has been long day with a vet trip)



RaeganW said:


> Conformation is about soundness, form, not function.


But what happens when the standards for conformation make them unsound? THAT is my point on this. Then... is it wrong? If it is... then do you deny that it IS happening in a good number of breeds?

[Quote removed by moderator]

I too think he is a gorgeous animal. BUT... his muzzle IS more than 1/3 the length of his head... which is the new breed standard.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> But what happens when the standards for conformation make them unsound?


You need to get off this. The standard is NOT what makes them unsound.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I found it for you. Has to do with Swedish Ken8nel Club. I guess they TOO have noticed a dangerous trend. It is here:
> http://www.skk.se/Global/Dokument/Utstallning/special-breed-specific-instructions-A8.pdf
> 
> 
> ...


actually..its not more than a third. you just dont have an eye.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Interesting thread. I don't have too much to add, but I do have a question that Xeph can probably answer.

If the GSD conformation standard hasn't changed, what has caused the transformation in the dogs that are being shown over a hundred years? This thread brought this website back to my mind: Winners of the Sieger

The favoring of the stacked stance with angulation of the rear end or a roach back... What made that occur if the standard didn't change? 

ETA: The change starts to creep in around the mid 1970s and simply becomes more and more extreme. I don't understand how all of these dogs can fit into the same breed conformation standard?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

The AKC German Shepherd Dog Standard calls for as close to a right angle as possible in the hindquarter of the dog.














































All of the above dogs meet that criteria....but some will be more functional than others.



> what has caused the transformation in the dogs that are being shown over a hundred years?


Preference and loopholes.

The GSD should have NO curvature to the spine AT ALL, so when an SV judge tells me that a dog with a curvy topline is correct, I die a little inside. The standard calls for a strong STRAIGHT topline.

Also, the whole history of the West German show lines and the change can basically be attributed to the Martin Brothers (Weinerau and Arminius kennels)


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Xeph said:


> You need to get off this. The standard is NOT what makes them unsound.


Actually... that is the question. You want me to get off the question we are debating?


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

The right angle thing doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but I think it's because with my eye, I'm measuring from the top of the hindquarter to the top of the hock, which is definitely not a right angle. 

To me, this dog's hindquarter looks like more of a right angle than any of those:










So from where to where is the angulation measured? And how can that standard be interpreted in such a way as to drastically change the dogs that are being shown? It seems to me that something had to change along the lines in order to require this stacked stance and shape out of the dog, because they weren't like that before. Did the interpretation change, or did aesthetics change, or what?


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Xeph... maybe you can help. I agree that stacking DOES make a difference (used to show Arabian horses). Any way you can give us pics of the same dog stacked AND unstacked so we can see the natural stance?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

That dog is nowhere near a right angle....a right angle is|_

The angulation is measured from the upper thigh to the lower thigh.

Also, the stack isn't new....the stack has been going on since the early 1900s. Interpretation and aesthetics changed, as it often does.

A dog with a right angle in the rear with (let's just say) a 14" long femur and a 14" long tibia, is going to be more functional than the dog with a 16" long femur and a 16" long tibia (the bones are supposed to match in length).

That said, both dogs meet the standard, but when it comes to functionality, the first dog is the more correct dog. Both are correct.....but one is more correct than the other.

Measuring angulation is about measuring bones and how they meet together.

ETA: Fuzzy you posted at the same time as me. Let me get pics of my bitch


----------



## Porphyria (Jul 18, 2011)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I found it for you. Has to do with Swedish Kennel Club. I guess they TOO have noticed a dangerous trend. It is here:
> http://www.skk.se/Global/Dokument/Utstallning/special-breed-specific-instructions-A8.pdf


Thanks! I was hoping it would still be available somewhere online! I think it's interesting to see what the FCI says about the issue.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Porphyria said:


> Thanks! I was hoping it would still be available somewhere online! I think it's interesting to see what the FCI says about the issue.


I may get poked at a bit here for linking... but I am pretty good at finding stuff on the web!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Mirada free stacked at 9 months old (I didn't touch this dog, she set herself up)









This is her, trying to free stack at 6 months (just learning)









Another free stack:









Hand set:



























Here she is on sheep. She stopped this way naturally.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

But do you have one of her just standing around the backyard looking at grasshoppers or something? Or is she ALWAYS that low in the hind quarters?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

German Shepherd Dogs, much of the time, do not stand around four square. My (mostly) German male does not do so either, and he has less rear than she does.

I think I have ONE picture of her standing four square...and it's because I set her up that way. Neither of my dogs was truly comfortable four square.

She's not "low in the rear" at all when she gaits either. I don't think you're understanding that, as a whole, extremities aside, GSD's are not supposed to look like this ----- when stacked up.

I am also not one to take pictures of my dogs just to take pictures. The camera comes out because there's something I want/need to see and examine further.

I have pictures of Mirada from the age of 10 weeks up to 15 months.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Fuzzybutts said:


> But doesn't what you refer to as vagueness give a breeder a bit more leniency and therefore let them breed what may be a heathier pup that is not so specific instead of one that has inherited defects but is more perfect to type?
> (hope that made sense - tired and has been long day with a vet trip)
> 
> 
> ...


No, his muzzle is precisely 1/3 of his head size measured from the nose tip to the back of the head. The standard was defined BECAUSE people were breeding for the shorter nose. This phrase is repeated in every one of the standards

*The chin should be perceptible from the side as well as from the front without being over-repandous (rising above the bite line) as in the Bulldog.*



Fuzzybutts said:


> But do you have one of her just standing around the backyard looking at grasshoppers or something? Or is she ALWAYS that low in the hind quarters?


The last picture of Mirada is the natural stance of a GSD who's working, alert and ready to take off at a moment's notice. It's what the GSD stack is supposed to mimic.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Xeph said:


> That dog is nowhere near a right angle....a right angle is|_
> 
> The angulation is measured from the upper thigh to the lower thigh.
> 
> ...


Ah, ok, I get it  I was measuring the right angle the other way (which I can't get to work via text, like your nifty example).

Some of the tremendously stacked dogs, like the 2007 winner of the Sieger, I just can't see being able to stand four square with a correct top line at all. My eyes are pretty good at measuring lengths and the dog's legs simply seem too short to raise his top line to his withers. 

To me, that dog looks crippled. I can't see him functioning properly in the herding world. I think that it's the angulation change to 45 degrees, which sounds like an aesthetic change made in the breed and seems to appear in the early 1970s. That looks exaggerated (to me) and it seems like the exaggeration is becoming more and more pronounced as the years go on, as though the person who can get their dog's hindquarters the closest to the ground will win the award. When does it stop? When the dogs being bred become so unsound that they can't move properly? At some point, the exaggeration needs to stop being rewarded so that people won't continue to do it more and more.

Again, all my opinion. The same goes with Bulldog faces/heads and Boxer noses. At some point, the dogs functionality decreases and it needs to stop being rewarded in the show ring so that breeders will stop breeding their show lines to those extremes. 

Like someone said earlier with the Quarter Horse example - they're being bred with smaller and smaller feet, they shuffle and they're basically crippled before they even hit their prime, all because judges continue to reward extremities in their breeding.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

A GSD's topline isn't supposed to be the same height as the whithers, it would make the dog too square and take away the power of the 'drive train' in the rear end. 
take a look at this illustration and you'll see the 90* angle Xeph's talking about. 
http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/05_The_Hindquarters/The_Hindquarters.html

_The pelvis is a complex arrangement of bones which takes the power generated by the hind legs and channels it forward into the spine. At the beginning of the pushing off stage of the stride (at any gait), the paw is positioned directly below the hip joint, and the force of the leg as it straightens is generated almost straight upwards. By the end of the stride, as the paw lifts off into the follow-through, the power is coming up at about a 45 degree angle forward, through an almost completely straightened leg _

_The pelvis must take this energy as it comes up the leg, transmit it through the hip joint, forward along the pelvis to the joint between the sacrum and the seventh, or last, lumbar vertebra, and direct it straight forward through the spine, parallel with the ground. A correct pelvic angle allows for the smooth transmission of energy over this curve from the legs to the spine, and is about the same in all canines (and most other big predators). Off angles are seen in show bred domestic stock which haven't been physically stressed to any great degree for several generations. I like to measure it by laying a plane across the top of the pelvis rather than trying to draw lines through it. It's more objective and easier to see. By this measure, the pelvis in a dog standing four square is between 30 and 35 degrees to the horizontal, and hopefully the spine (Fig 3). The more conventional method draws a line somewhere through the middle of the ilial crest and the ischial tuberosity, and is between 20 and 25 degrees. *In a show posed dog, the angle will appear somewhat steeper.*_

_A very flat pelvis will dissipate excess force into the roof of the acetabulum (Fig 4), while an excessively steep pelvis, which is more common, will misdirect some energy upwards through the sacral joint instead of channeling it forward (Fig 5). Both conditions seem to result in a shortened stride in the rear. The flat pelvis makes a forward under reach more difficult, and the steep pelvis prevents the dogs from executing a long, smooth follow-through. The steep pelvis, which is common in many show lines, German and American, appeared because of the emphasis put on sidegait in the show ring. Many extreme side-gaiters are too long in body, though they require that length to lessen interference between very extended front and rear action. The steep pelvis gives the illusion of a shorter body. Affected American dogs show a long spine and abrupt steepness at the sacral joint (Fig 6). Affected German dogs show excess slope at the mid-back (Fig 7). You'd be surprised how many of these apparently short coupled German dogs, when you actually iron out their spines (on paper of course!) are actually rather long in body. Some even have rather flat pelvises, with the slope originating purely in the curvature of the spine. Correct pelvic slope is necessary for efficient, powerful movement, but it must originate in the right place. The slope of the pelvis normally starts at the sacral joint, not at some point of curvature further up the spine. The spine is not designed to absorb a great deal of force while curved, and this should be considered a serious fault._


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> A GSD's topline isn't supposed to be the same height as the whithers, it would make the dog too square and take away the power of the 'drive train' in the rear end.
> take a look at this illustration and you'll see the 90* angle Xeph's talking about.
> http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/05_The_Hindquarters/The_Hindquarters.html


Neat website, will definitely read the whole thing tomorrow. 

Right now, just glancing, the thing that bothers me is Figure 16, dogs B-D and their descriptions. Dog B is a serviceable working dog, but won't trot like it should in the ring, meaning it has healthy movement, soundness and will hold up under the rigors of work. Dog C has ideal angulation for beautiful movent. Dog D is "excessively angulated, but still sound. It will show a beautiful gait at the trot, but may not be quite so powerful in jumping or galloping". 

To me, this means that GSD breeders are breeding for ONE gait and that's the trot, because that's the gait that they show. Dog B is technically the healthiest dog, as none of its movements are compromised and it is a good working dog, while dogs C and D are show ring dogs, bred for a "roomy" or "beautiful" trot. HOW is it fair or healthy to breed a dog like D, that has a "beautiful gait at the trot" and is "sound", but his power and movement are compromised because of his conformation? 

This points to the title of the thread, for me - these pedigree GSDs like dog D are indeed ruining the breed, IMO. They may be "sound" and they'll certainly do well in the show ring, but to breed a dog that can't run or jump properly or with enough power is unhealthy and to perpetuate those lines shows a disregard for the health of the breed in general. Again, all IMO.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I agree that very responsible breeders certainly want the best for their breed, including healthy long lived dogs. The question is whether breeding for show conformation is responsible.
> 
> Right now there is a huge debate going on about border collies. Most "responsible" breeders do not even want their dogs regeristable with the AKC.
> 
> ...


Ah, a topic sure to create a lot of emotion. . . haven't slogged through all of it yet. The thing is, if people want to choose Champion lines, nothing wrong with that, if it is the kind of dog they like and want. Myself, I am looking for working trial Champion lines. But not everyone wants the dog that I want. I think people should be able to get the dog that appeals to them for whatever reason is important to them, without a nanny state telling them what they are allowed to have. As to a standard changing to allow grossly out-of-standard dogs, probably not going to happen. Clubs tend ot be very protective of their breeds, and most will not change a standard without very good reaon. However, sometimes breeders and judges are looking for things that the standard may not actually describe. The "documentary" (and I use that term very loosely) "Pedigreed Dogs Exposed" is blatant propaganda. The nutcase who made it has been known to make unsubstantiated and untrue statements about specific dogs to make her point. And editing can be very useful in presenting the picture you want to present - even if it bears little resemblance to the truth.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The PROPER movement will enable a dog to work LONGER and HARDER without injury so correct movement (therefore correct conformation) is essentail, form follows function. Frankly if I'm having a dog that needs to work fora living I don't WANT serviceable, serviceable wears out quicker, it's more prone to injury. If a dog is chasing sheep or humans all day I want a dog that can do so for as many years as possible!


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> The PROPER movement will enable a dog to work LONGER and HARDER without injury so correct movement (therefore correct conformation) is essentail, form follows function.


Right, I understand that. So Dog B has the proper movement for a working dog that can work long and hard without incurring injury. Yet dogs C and D are what are being bred for the show ring because of their "showy" trots. Dog C may be able to work hard, as it states that its movement isn't yet compromised. But Dog D, the dog that will most likely do best in the show ring due to its noted outstanding trot, is not a good working dog.

Form isn't following function, according to chart 16 on that website.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

No, dog C has the PROPER movement for work and show a long stride that doesn't lose power. B is 'serviceable' meaning they could 'get by' working. GSD's don't work at a full run, they work AT THE TROT. Think of a Tennesee Walking horse and the ground eating gait they're famous for, they aren't made to gallop. D is great for 'show' but is losing power for faster pace (think burst speed) and for jumping.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> No, dog C and D have the PROPER movement for work and show, B is 'serviceable' meaning they could 'get by' working. GSD's don't work at a full run, they work AT THE TROT. Think of a Tennesee Walking horse and the ground eating gait they're famous for, they aren't made to gallop.


But a TWH's power at the gallop isn't compromised because of its fabulous trot. 

Maybe I'm overanalyzing what they're saying about each dog, because it's not like the website has space to go on and on about every conformation type. The focus on the trot just really bothered me. Being a horse person, I know that every movement is essential to the well-being of the animal, not just one gait. A horse with a beautiful trot but an underpowered canter isn't going to do well in the show ring. A horse with a lovely canter but a disjointed trot won't do well, either. There are lots of politics in the horse world that I don't like, but what I do like is the emphasis on every single gait being quality. 

I still think the extremities need to stop being rewarded. Dog D will get probably get noticed and rewarded above Dog C, the supposed "perfect" model, because of its exaggerated trot. I liked the point earlier in this thread that the extremes tend to get noticed and rewarded, even if they are marginally outside of a breed standard, merely because they'll stick out of the crowd.

That being said, how come other herding dogs aren't being bred to exhibit this same stacking and angulation in the ring? Do they not do a majority of their work at the trot, or is it just the aesthetics of the GSD breed?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> First of all, it's NOT the AKC that sets the standard, it's the individual breed clubs and it's VERY hard to change the standards within the clubs.
> 
> The reason that some breed clubs don't want registration with the AKC is because Puppy mills (and show mills) use that registration on uneducated buyers that think AKC=Quality breeder. The fact is , the AKC is ONLY garaunteeing that the dog is PUREBRED, not well bred or within standards. There are plenty of dogs that have Conformation championships and hold working titles.


There are other reasons breed clubs don't want registration with AKC. They may have different goals than AKC. They may resent the way AKC incorporated their breed (some breeds were virtually hijacked). They may want to have a club which is independent of AKC (which can be a valid option, even if the breed is AKC recognized). The fact is that many high volume commercial breeders don't bother with AKC anymore, as there are numerous "registries" with lower standards who don't insist on DNA verification on dogs who are bred more than a few times and don't do inspections. The average person buying a puppy in a pet shop has no idea there is any difference between AKC and Continental Kennel Club or APRI or WKC or any number of registries which will register basically anything.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I corrected, C is balance good stride and power when needed (the ideal). D loses power but gives a long stride in the trot


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

How come back when GSDs were mostly actual working dogs, they weren't so angulated, if the angulation is so necessary for working the way they're supposed to? Now that very few are working dogs, the angulation has increased. It really doesn't make sense to say that angulation is so great for working if the working dogs didn't have it.

"Dog D is excessively angulated, but still sound" is hardly a ringing endorsement.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Fuzzybutts said:


> Here is one for Poms that admits that they were once 30# dogs and were originally shown at around 20#. That is very different than todays poms that ate around 4#!
> 
> http://www.pommania.co.uk/pomhistory.htm
> 
> And that is form a breeder!


So what? If people want small pomeranians and that is what the breed has developed into, why is that a problem? There are still larger poms for people who want them, an a variety of medium sized spitz breeds.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The STANDARD is the same as it was before.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> The STANDARD is the same as it was before.


Ok, so it's just aesthetic interpretation of what the standard should be? I wonder what inspired that particular aesthetic appeal to come about. So while the standard is the same, it seems that the exaggeration comes in the interpretation and the desire of breeders to catch the judge's eye by producing something within the standard but slightly different from the rest. 

Sorry, I'll stop bothering you with my questions and start doing my own research  I've just always been curious about the GSD stacking and angulation and the reasoning behind it. Thanks for the information and the links


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> The STANDARD is the same as it was before.


So they weren't breeding to the standard back then? Why not? Why did out-of-standard dogs win the championships?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I agree and applaud this. (Although AKC herding trials are nothing like actual herding trials)
> I have little problems with the standards needed for field, obedience, agility, etc champions! (Although the scent discrimination part of obedience trials are a bit unfair to some breeds of dogs IMO)
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Really? the biggest handicap I've seen in scent discrimination is that owners can't quite trust that it is possible.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> So they weren't breeding to the standard back then? Why not? Why did out-of-standard dogs win the championships?


Or perhaps the stacking wasn't as extreame as it is today. Look at the illustrations I linked, it shows the correct angles stacked and unstacked.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> So they weren't breeding to the standard back then? Why not? Why did out-of-standard dogs win the championships?


because the standard is about working toward a goal. you typically start "not close", breed the closest and get "closer" to the standard.


and to dmickel..the question in this thread was about standards. there's nothing wrong with the standard. you just repeated the real issue...in some breeds..the problem of biased judging...which is not an issue with the breed standard. its an issue of politics.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dmickle1 said:


> But a TWH's power at the gallop isn't compromised because of its fabulous trot.
> 
> Maybe I'm overanalyzing what they're saying about each dog, because it's not like the website has space to go on and on about every conformation type. The focus on the trot just really bothered me. Being a horse person, I know that every movement is essential to the well-being of the animal, not just one gait. A horse with a beautiful trot but an underpowered canter isn't going to do well in the show ring. A horse with a lovely canter but a disjointed trot won't do well, either. There are lots of politics in the horse world that I don't like, but what I do like is the emphasis on every single gait being quality.
> 
> ...


GSDs are bred to keep stock withing a "boundary" as in the dog acting as a living fence. Dogs like Border Collies, Aussies, Kelpies and ACDs are bred to move stock from place to place. That doesn't mean I think that all the dogs who are bred to win in the show ring would also be the most efficient working dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

there's something thats been bugging me about this thread and it has to do with the idea of interpretation. it'll have to wait until tomorrow for me to post a detailed explanation though. and it'll be pit bulls, cuz thats what im familiar with.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> because the standard is about working toward a goal. you typically start "not close", breed the closest and get "closer" to the standard.


You can breed several dog generations in 10 years. Plus, back then there wasn't the same societal frowning-upon of offing the pups you didn't think fit the standard. So they really should have been able to get closer to the standard much sooner than is evident on that website (the one with the winners through the years). If that really was what they were breeding toward it should have been seen much earlier.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> You can breed several dog generations in 10 years. Plus, back then there wasn't the same societal frowning-upon of offing the pups you didn't think fit the standard. So they really should have been able to get closer to the standard much sooner than is evident on that website (the one with the winners through the years). If that really was what they were breeding toward it should have been seen much earlier.


youre overlooking the variability of genetics. if i breed two dogs and get a litter, there's no guarantee that litter will be any closer than the last generation. its usually the opposite. bunch of pet dogs and only a few who represent improvements.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the ring that problems arise. Its like in the Quarter horse world in the western pleasure world. Horses with lower noses and worse shuffleing gaits started winning. Now we have horses that are peanut rollers and cant take a sound step. This is because the horses that won shuffled and were peanut rollers. (I don't want to start an arguement about this, but it was a good example.)
> 
> Like the Quarter Horse world, the Dog show world prizes exaggerated specimens of breeds, then those dogs that have those traits that the winning dog had as well as the winning dogs are bred to pass along more of the exaggerated traits. This may start out as a slight difference that pleased that judges eye but it grows into something bigger.
> 
> Therefore I do believe that the show ring does have as much blame in this as the breeders do.


I do wonder, though. If some of those judges had the chance to put up a sound animal if they might. Frequently part of the problem is that folks with really functional animals think they don't have a chance, so the judges who are less extreme only have a chance to put up what is brought to them (guilty as charged, as I really hate showing conformation)


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and to dmickel..the question in this thread was about standards. there's nothing wrong with the standard. you just repeated the real issue...in some breeds..the problem of biased judging...which is not an issue with the breed standard. its an issue of politics.


Right  I think if you replaced "standard" with "conformation" in the title of the thread, we'd have a much more interesting conversation, though that conversation has been going on anyways. 

Exaggerating breed conformation in order to get a judge's attention is an issue, one that we see in GSDs, Bulldogs, Boxers and other breeds. It's kind of a catch-22, though - you HAVE to stand out to get the judge's attention, which requires you to have some sort of uniqueness about your dog, yet that uniqueness must fit into the standard by which all the dogs are judged, which in turn requires different interpretations of standards so that exeraggerations can occur to get the judge's attention. Whew.

ETA: When I showed Hunters with my warmblood mare, she frequently cleared fences by 3 feet with both incredibly tight front and hind ends. She "snapped" her back over fences like I have never seen before and was more than a little hard to stay with. While it wasn't "correct" Hunter behavior, as they're not supposed to over exert themselves at every fence, she often won classes because of her attention-grabbing style. 

Or maybe the judges felt like giving me a ribbon because I managed to hang on for the whole trip


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

oo


dmickle1 said:


> Right  I think if you replaced "standard" with "conformation" in the title of the thread, we'd have a much more interesting conversation, though that conversation has been going on anyways.
> 
> Exaggerating breed conformation in order to get a judge's attention is an issue, one that we see in GSDs, Bulldogs, Boxers and other breeds. It's kind of a catch-22, though - you HAVE to stand out to get the judge's attention, which requires you to have some sort of uniqueness about your dog, yet that uniqueness must fit into the standard by which all the dogs are judged, which in turn requires different interpretations of standards so that exeraggerations can occur to get the judge's attention. Whew.
> 
> ...


well..when im not limited to a cellphone for posting...ill walk you guys through my breed...which might be worth examing because of howthings played out with American Pit Bull Terriers and the "American Bully".


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> oo
> 
> well..when im not limited to a cellphone for posting...ill walk you guys through my breed...which might be worth examing because of howthings played out with American Pit Bull Terriers and the "American Bully".


Awesome  I'm for bed soon, but I look forward to reading that tomorrow! 

ETA: Thanks for some great information and some really interesting insights into the subject, everyone!


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> You might want to compare your GSD shots where ALL the dogs are free standing, or stacked. Stacking that position does not make them deformed. I could stack my non GSD dogs in that exact same position and get the same shape.


Really? I've taken this to the test with my WSS, I didn't get the same shape. The back was a little lowered, but nowhere near looking like the pictures I posted. 



Fuzzybutts said:


> But do you have one of her just standing around the backyard looking at grasshoppers or something? Or is she ALWAYS that low in the hind quarters?


That's the same thing that came to my mind. 



Xeph said:


> German Shepherd Dogs, much of the time, do not stand around four square. My (mostly) German male does not do so either, and he has less rear than she does.
> 
> I think I have ONE picture of her standing four square...and it's because I set her up that way. Neither of my dogs was truly comfortable four square.
> 
> She's not "low in the rear" at all when she gaits either. I don't think you're understanding that, as a whole, extremities aside, GSD's are not supposed to look like this ----- when stacked up..


Apparently they did use to look like that, have a straight back much like the modern Dutch and Belgian Shepherds, until about the 1960s when the sloping topline came in. Unless... they weren't stacked 'correctly' before, that is. 



cshellenberger said:


> A GSD's topline isn't supposed to be the same height as the whithers, it would make the dog too square and take away the power of the 'drive train' in the rear end.
> take a look at this illustration and you'll see the 90* angle Xeph's talking about.
> http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/05_The_Hindquarters/The_Hindquarters.html


So... Belgian shepherds and Dutch shepherds, both straight-backed, bred for the same work and related to the German Shepherd (in the beginning, the Dutch shepherd, Malinois and GSD looked very much alike), lack the power in the rear end? Sorry to say this but... I don't buy it. 



Willowy said:


> How come back when GSDs were mostly actual working dogs, they weren't so angulated, if the angulation is so necessary for working the way they're supposed to? Now that very few are working dogs, the angulation has increased. It really doesn't make sense to say that angulation is so great for working if the working dogs didn't have it.


Totally agree with this. 

Anyway, there are people who'll defend the sloping topline and people who'll defy it. I belong to the latter and I have a clear opinion about the GSD (show) conformation, so I guess it won't do anyone much good wasting their time trying to 'correct' my thinking. So beforehand I'll just say this: we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> To me, this means that GSD breeders are breeding for ONE gait and that's the trot, because that's the gait that they show


INCORRECT!!! THIS is the gait the breed WORKS AT. The German Shepherd Dog is a tending dog, NOT a drover. They DO trot the majority of the day when they are tending sheep. You will see them running when they are bringing the sheep to and from the pasture, and sometimes if they need to keep a sheep in line, but they are a TROTTING breed.



> So... Belgian shepherds and Dutch shepherds, both straight-backed


A dog with a descending topline does not cease to have a straight back just because the topline is dropping. The Belgian breeds also do not call for the same amount of angulation in the rear, as per the standard, and they are square, as opposed to rectangular.

Even properly structured working lines are more angulated than they were in the beginning.

I love the breed, but I wouldn't take most of the early dogs. Quite honestly, IMO, they were ugly.

ETA: Just read the WWSD standard....they are not even comparable to the GSD. The GSD standard names exact angles, fore and aft, for the breed. The WSSD standard is vague and open, so, no, your dog wouldn't exhibit the same angles as my GSDs.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Xeph said:


> INCORRECT!!! THIS is the gait the breed WORKS AT. The German Shepherd Dog is a tending dog, NOT a drover. They DO trot the majority of the day when they are tending sheep. You will see them running when they are bringing the sheep to and from the pasture, and sometimes if they need to keep a sheep in line, but they are a TROTTING breed.
> 
> 
> A dog with a descending topline does not cease to have a straight back just because the topline is dropping. The Belgian breeds also do not call for the same amount of angulation in the rear, as per the standard, and they are square, as opposed to rectangular.
> ...


I understand it's a breed that works at the trot, therefore a powerful trot is the emphasized gait. However, to me, breeding a dog like D, who lacks power at the gallop because of his marvelous trot, is poor breeding. How is a dog sound that has an underpowered gallop and jump? 

Harness Racers and Pacing horses are bred for their trots. It doesn't mean they can't canter or gallop and I've seen some of them with a fairly decent jumping action. Thoroughbred horses are bred for their gallops, but they sure as heck can trot, too. 

Meh, I think all of us who are using horse examples need to stop. Horses need to be able to work at all gaits, even if they have a specialty gait, whereas with dogs, this apparently isn't the case.

ETA: And I wouldn't take any of the dogs in the last 30 years, because I find the extreme stacking to look unnatural and deformed. 

Here are some other tending breeds: Belgian Malinois, Belgian Sheepdogs, Belgian Tervurens, Bouvier des Flandres, Briards, Beaceron, Pyrenean Shepherds and Pulis.

If those are all tending breeds, how come the GSD is the only one being bred with angulation in the hindquarters and showing while stacked so heavily? Are the rest of the dogs not efficient sheep tenders?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> How is a dog sound that has an underpowered gallop and jump?


Underpowered does not equal unsound. It simply means it's got less power than before. I do not like a dog that gaits off the hock, but not all dogs will be powerful in the jump regardless of angles. I think it becomes a bigger deal when the dog cannot get in and out of the pen (and I've seen dogs that wouldn't be able to).

Dogs....ALL breeds of dogs, are ONLY shown at the trot. They are never shown at a gallop. I don't know why people always try to use horses, as, generally they are not comparable. Horses are shown at various gaits....dogs are not.

Mirada has more angles than Strauss, and he has more power in his jumping.....but she's the better jumper as a whole.

And where is this idea coming from, that because a little (in the case of some dogs) power is lost, that the dog cannot gallop or jump at all? Because that certainly seems to be the insinuation.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dmickle1 said:


> Meh, I think all of us who are using horse examples need to stop. Horses need to be able to work at all gaits, even if they have a specialty gait, whereas with *GSDs*, this apparently isn't the case.



Fixed it for ya.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> how come the GSD is the only one being bred with angulation


Couldn't tell ya in the herding breeds. But the GSD as a whole is not the only one bred with excessive angulation and set up in an extreme manner


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Underpowered does not equal unsound. It simply means it's got less power than before. I do not like a dog that gaits off the hock, but not all dogs will be powerful in the jump regardless of angles. I think it becomes a bigger deal when the dog cannot get in and out of the pen (and I've seen dogs that wouldn't be able to).
> 
> Dogs....ALL breeds of dogs, are ONLY shown at the trot. They are never shown at a gallop. I don't know why people always try to use horses, as, generally they are not comparable. Horses are shown at various gaits....dogs are not.
> 
> ...


Actually, Pacers are only ever shown at the trot, though none of their other gates are underpowered due to their ability to pace. Thoroughbred race horses only ever gallop in competition, but they can trot and canter without a lack of power (and many, when retired, are actually used for other sports, like jumping, which requires a powerful trot and canter). 

It's tempting to use horses because they are the other domesticated animal we have reference to who are bred for both conformation and sport and have many diverse breeds, just like dogs. Done with horses now, though.

It's not that Dog D can't jump or gallop at all, but to me, breeding an animal for a specific gait to the detriment of the other gaits is just wrong. Overall soundness, easy motion and power at any gait should be the goal of a breeder, IMO, which is why when I'm looking, I'll simply find a breeder that looks for those qualities. 

I'm still wondering why none of the other tending breeds are bred with angulation or shown stacked... I'll have some time to research it and to read the entire website that one chart came off of while at work today and maybe I'll come across some information that will inform my opinion or change my mind


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

There's nobody I've ever found (and I've asked MANY people myself) that even know why the GSD is stacked the way it is. In 111 years, from the earliest pictures I can see...the dogs have stacked that way.

That said, you'll always have a dog that deficient somewhere....in any breed. It's the nature of dogs.

I, in general, prefer a more moderate animal, but I can tolerate more rear as long as the dog is clean coming and going, and moves nicely from the side, and I feel I could work that dog.

For me, Mirada is overangulated, but she meets the standard....and she can indeed work, whether it is at a trot or a gallop.

Here's the only "picture" (it's really a video still) that I have of Mirada standing four square naturally









BTW, there IS more to how a dog transmits power in the gallop, than just the skeletal structure (ligamentation plays a large role).


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

dmickle1 said:


> Ok, so it's just aesthetic interpretation of what the standard should be? I wonder what inspired that particular aesthetic appeal to come about. So while the standard is the same, it seems that the exaggeration comes in the interpretation and the desire of breeders to catch the judge's eye by producing something within the standard but slightly different from the rest. . . .


I am as well wondering about opinions on circumstances where the changes that have come about in the breed through aesthetic interpretation then get written into the standard . . . . even when those changes are conformational exaggerations. This has happened with the Lhasa Apso and the Tibetan Spaniel in regards to their muzzle and bite.

Originally, by standard, an overshot mouth was preferable to an undershot (1901). In 1935 that standard was changed so that an undershot was preferable. ref: - 
http://www.lhasa-apso.org/standard/mouth.htm

Surely that is an example of a 'standard' changed in a manner that is detrimental. In the least it is an example where a breed is then not at all 'preserved' to its original form . . . . but deliberately altered to suit fashion. 

Photos of street Tibbies can be found here in their full glorious variety, some finer and longer muzzled, while others are more brachycephalic: - http://www.tiibetinspanielit.fi/cms/images/artikkelit/tibbie_or_damci.pdf

Founder photos are here: - http://www.tibbies.ch/images/content/Tibetan Spaniel Seminar by PeerCH2009 _2_-1.pdf

More on the original Tibetan Terrier, Lhasa Apso, And Tibetan Spaniel origins here (originally varieties of the same landrace called Apsos), with mention of the muzzle/bite standard change and photos - http://www.scribd.com/doc/34666069/Lhasa-Apso-a-Study-ny-Lhasa-Apso-org



> A survival developed breed from the Himalayas would have had a normal canine mouth. The Apsos’ slightly shortened muzzle may have allowed for some undershot mouths in Tibet, but nothing so extreme that it would hinder survival. Lionel Jacob, 1901: _“Mouth quite level, but of the two a slightly overshot mouth is preferable to an undershot one.”_ A scissor bite, while no longer preferred, is not a serious fault. A full complement of incisors, lined up evenly, is desirable.












SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> I am as well wondering about opinions on circumstances where the changes that have come about in the breed through aesthetic interpretation then get written into the standard . . . . even when those changes are conformational exaggerations. This has happened with the Lhasa Apso and the Tibetan Spaniel in regards to their muzzle and bite.
> 
> Originally, by standard, an overshot mouth was preferable to an undershot (1901). In 1935 that standard was changed so that an undershot was preferable. ref: -
> http://www.lhasa-apso.org/standard/mouth.htm
> ...


this may sound snooty but its not intended to be...

the standards that do get.changed like that...pretty much all seem to be companion/toy types. because there's nothing in the job description of companion/toy lap dog that necessitates any kind of moderation at all. working breeds should still be able to work and that limits the aesthetic factor.

though with my breed, the standard is kind of interesting. the functional aspect of the dog is strictly, rigorously and anal retentively outlined while traits like coat color and ear set are basically a free for all barring two dq in colors and a "preference" in ear set to cite two of the aesthetic traits that are sort of loosely described. it tends towards extreme variarion in individual type and strict uniformity in functional type.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Personally, I think the issues with health problems caused by breeding for more "extreme" or "exaggerated" looks are caused by a much broader problem -- human nature. Human beings are very visual animals, and I think we tend, over time, to try to make things more and more visually unique and striking. You can see this with architecture, and in many other human endeavors. It seems to increase when people are more deeply involved in their particular pursuit, and they get a kind of tunnel vision. Obviously not everyone is doing this, but I think that breeding any animal intentionally in a way that will damage its quality of life or life expectancy is cruel. As far as a remedy... I'm not really sure what the best approach would be. The political issues are incredibly complicated, plus each breed has its own issues (if it has issues) and culture and history.

I'm more concerned about loss of genetic variation, personally. I think inbreeding (within a certain number of generations -- not sure of best number, maybe 10? 20?) should be illegal. I think this would also reduce the popular sire issues because not being able to breed their offspring together would have a corrective effect. Even with that, though, some breeds just don't seem to have enough genetic variability to survive with a closed gene pool. You have to think one hundred years into the future. Our winnowing down of genetic variation through selective breeding is just going to make the health problems worse.

One caveat to this post is that my real-world experience with purebred dogs and the world of breeding and competing with them is very limited. There could be many other factors that I'm not aware of.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I wonder what inspired that particular aesthetic appeal to come about.


In American dogs it was Lance of Fran Jo. In West German dogs it was Canto and Quanto Weinerau


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this may sound snooty but its not intended to be...
> 
> the standards that do get.changed like that...pretty much all seem to be companion/toy types. because there's nothing in the job description of companion/toy lap dog that necessitates any kind of moderation at all. . . .


It doesn't sound snooty at all . . . as it is the truth.

The problem here is, then, that some of us understand/value moderation and it is VERY difficult to find in a companion-only breed (impossible I would say). I AM one who complains about standards and interpretation of standards ruining some breeds - as in the breeds I appreciate the most this IS what has happened.

One of the reasons I originally looked past the Tibbie as a breed worth consideration was because of its muzzle. I really like the breed but for that, but I find those kind of decisions, when supported by clubs/societies, to be off putting. In my head I can't get past the idea of supporting idiots that would do such a thing with my $$$$.

SOB


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Avie said:


> Really? I've taken this to the test with my WSS, I didn't get the same shape. The back was a little lowered, but nowhere near looking like the pictures I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A sloping topline can still be a straight topline... the curvature in the German show line's topline as pictured is a "roach". The American show line you posted does not have a back parallel to the ground in the stack, but the back, I assure you, is still straight. 

Out of curiosity (and curiosity only!), are you familiar with many, many shepherds (of the human variety) who use Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois as tending dogs on their herds of 300+ sheep? You seem to declare them the superior sheep dog, and I did see that you are in the Netherlands, so I could not help but wonder if Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois are the popular breed of choice there for shepherds.

For anyone who is wondering about German Shepherds standing four square, my German line dog is not altogether comfortable standing in such a manner, either. When he is alert, and when he is relaxed, and when he is "watching butterflies", he remains in a three point stack. 



















I must ask - does anyone believe that his "angulation" has ruined his working ability?




























Interestingly enough, my neighbor's German Shepherd, who is 50% American show lines and 50% West German show lines, does not stack himself nearly as often, though he does reveal that he has much more rear than my dog when stacked three point.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I seriously just looked for a like button.

Also, WTH isn't your neighbor showing that dog?


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

The dog's missing some "equipment" as of a few months ago LOL but you're right, Trooper is actually a very well put together dog!! I'll have to stack him sometime and get a picture for you. You should see him move, too, he gaits around the backyard beautifully... has the whole flying trot and all.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Equinox said:


> A sloping topline can still be a straight topline... the curvature in the German show line's topline as pictured is a "roach". The American show line you posted does not have a back parallel to the ground in the stack, but the back, I assure you, is still straight.
> 
> Out of curiosity (and curiosity only!), are you familiar with many, many shepherds (of the human variety) who use Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois as tending dogs on their herds of 300+ sheep? You seem to declare them the superior sheep dog, and I did see that you are in the Netherlands, so I could not help but wonder if Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois are the popular breed of choice there for shepherds.
> 
> ...


To me, there's a difference between a dog who naturally stands slightly stacked, as yours does, or square, as your friends, and a dog who stacks to the extreme as a natural stance. Just because a dog is ABLE to stack at a 45 degree angle doesn't mean that it should stand that way constantly, IMO. So your friend's dog may be able to stack with a lot more rear than yours, but he doesn't stand that way naturally and therefore has a healthier looking frame and build when he is relaxed.

Both of your dogs look like healthy working dogs to me because they are comfortable standing while not stacked to the extreme 45 degree angle. A dog who is uncomfortable standing with his hindquarters at any angle but 60-45 degrees looks deformed, IMO. 

What other breeds are shown stacked to that extreme angle? I can't find any, including sheep tending dogs. No one is going to be able to convince me that 45 degree angulation in the hindquarters makes an ideal sheep tending dog, as there are many breeds (some of which I listed earlier), which have more natural angles in their hindquarters who are also used to tend sheep with great success.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> So your friend's dog may be able to stack with a lot more rear than yours, but he doesn't stand that way naturally


He would if he were taught to. All the freestacks I showed mean only that I taught the dog to stack that way, and didn't manipulate her. I can make her look "natural" if I want. If you think Mirada stacks "extreme" all the time, then I would unabashedly say you have no clue.

Mirada doesn't stand all stretched out all the time, nor does Strauss....but they don't stand four square very often at all

Standing offset is *natural* to the breed


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Xeph said:


> He would if he were taught to. All the freestacks I showed mean only that I taught the dog to stack that way, and didn't manipulate her. I can make her look "natural" if I want. If you think Mirada stacks "extreme" all the time, then I would unabashedly say you have no clue.
> 
> Mirada doesn't stand all stretched out all the time, nor does Strauss....but they don't stand four square very often at all
> 
> Standing offset is *natural* to the breed


No, none of the photos of Mirada or Strauss standing naturally have been extremely stacked. But perusing through photos of other GSDs... Some just stand that way. ALL of the time. 

I was going to edit my last post to add this, but it took me too long: Even Xeph herself, whose word I pretty much take as law when it comes to GSDs, said earlier in this thread that she hasn't been able to uncover the reason GSD standards and aesthetics call for the stacked position.

I just spent some time going through photos of the winners of the Preishütesieger title, awarded at the SV-Hauptpreishüten. Lots are hard to find photos of, but of the dogs that I managed to locate, not a single one had angles or stacked like the dogs these days. Now I'm looking around at more current working (and specifically tending) champions. They still don't show the extreme angulation that show ring bred GSDs seem to have.

Meh, we should probably let other people chat in this thread, if they wish. You guys have your aesthetic liking and your adherence to the GSD standards, whereas I have my own opinions about what healthy and sound dogs look like


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Intentional or not, constantly taking digs at the type dogs another person owns really isn't cool.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Though, like Xeph has said, it is offensive to the owner and breeder of the dog, I appreciate you using the terms "healthier _looking_" and "_looks _deformed, _IMO_". It amuses me that some will declare a dog deformed and therefore completely "useless for work" based off of looks alone. It is one thing to see a dog as aesthetically unappealing and another to say with confidence from nothing more than a picture that the dog cannot be worked. 

I'm not referring to anyone on this thread specifically - believe it or not, I have been told that a dog with my GSD's build is unsuitable for work because his conformation is off. In their eyes, my dog looked "deformed", and this was based off of only a single picture - no video, no meetings in person. In all honesty, it did not bother me. "That dog sucks as a working dog because it is standing like this and this and its legs are like this"... unless you back it with proof or at least solid and credible explanation, I merely shrug such comments off as matters of uninformed opinion rather than the fact these statements are being toted as. So I like that some will state that they are making an opinion based off of appearances, not that they know that certainly, this dog being pictured CANNOT work, and this dog pictured can because "they are standing like so". 

On another forum I am a part of, there is a CH titled GSD that tends sheep. He has much more rear than my German Shepherd does, but from looking at photos of his movement/gait, I can say that he covers much more ground than my dog does and all else equal, his conformation and movement would be advantageous as a tending dog. For those who don't know, I am more "working dog" person than I am "show dog person" (if I had to choose - if I didn't, I like to just say that I am a dog person, pure and simple). Even I can easily say that conformation does, indeed, matter. Correct structure will give you a superior working dog, assuming, once again, that all else is equal. The reason you do not see show lines being worked on sheep has more to do with the mindset of the breeders, owners, and handlers, and the mentality of the dogs than it does the conformation and physical build of the dogs. But for some reason, it is always a dog's physical condition and conformation that is commented on, and beaten down over and over again by those opposing breed registries/showing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Couldn't tell ya in the herding breeds. But the GSD as a whole is not the only one bred with excessive angulation and set up in an extreme manner


Ferinstance? I know some breeds have more angulation than they probably need, but I can't think of any others with as much angulation and set up in as extreme a manner as the GSD. A thought on breed standards - I know in our breed, one thing that is being considered for change is shoulder angulation - currently listed as 45 degrees, which is not really what the dogs have and would probably change a lot we didn't want to change if it WERE attainable. Better technology allows us to know that which the originators of the standard did not know.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Intentional or not, constantly taking digs at the type dogs another person owns really isn't cool.


Yikes, I didn't mean to take digs at your dogs at all. From what you've taught me in this thread, your dogs stack naturally and are comfortable that way. They don't stand with the severe 45 degree angulation unless YOU stand them that way, from what I understand, so I know they're just doing what is comfortable for them. 

When I said I have my own opinions what what a sound and healthy dog looks like, I was referring to the extremely angulated dogs who literally never stand any way but in the three point stack with a massive angle in their hindquarters. I question whether those dogs would even be able to stand straight. From what I see, your dogs don't do that and CAN straighten their hind ends, they just choose not to stand that way due to their own comfort in standing more angulated. I understand quite a bit more about GSD conformation due to your posts and from what I can tell, your dogs are sound and healthy. There are other dogs out there that aren't.

Sorry if you thought I was digging at you and your dogs. GSDs are "my" breed, too, which is why I wanted so badly to understand the conformation standards and aesthetics of show dogs in particular.



Equinox said:


> Though, like Xeph has said, it is offensive to the owner and breeder of the dog, I appreciate you using the terms "healthier _looking_" and "_looks _deformed, _IMO_". It amuses me that some will declare a dog deformed and therefore completely "useless for work" based off of looks alone. It is one thing to see a dog as aesthetically unappealing and another to say with confidence from nothing more than a picture that the dog cannot be worked.


At the end of the day, it's all about aesthetics. I don't like dogs who stand naturally angulated at anything more than 65 degrees. I used the terms "look", because that's what I see and it's my opinion, which is why I don't breed show GSDs and that's why I won't buy one. I wouldn't ever want to insult responsible dog owners like you and Xeph who are following breed standards in a healthy manner and who have dogs who can work, not just trot pretty around a ring. To me, it's the breeders who breed dogs who can "trot pretty" but can't do anything else who should be taken to task for their responsibility in negatively effecting the breed. 

As I've told Xeph about Strauss before, I think your dog and your friend's are quite lovely


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

dmickle1, I like your questions and they help me learn as well (coming from someone who also loves German Shepherds). I'm not sure if Xeph thought you were referring to her dogs specifically or not, but from what I understand, she is trying to say that calling a dog deformed isn't tactful - regardless of whether or not the dog's owner is a member of this forum. A lot of what has been said are generalizations, and generalizations made about a certain line. In this case, American show line German Shepherds, which are Xeph's passion... her Rada is being an American show line German Shepherd. 

It's not just you, though, it's something that's become increasingly frustrating because it is such a common practice here on DF. Find a picture of a GSD, and point to the dog and say "ooooh that frog dog is DEFORMED!". I am seeing more and more people referring to ALL American show lines as "frog dogs" when that is clearly not the case. If someone spoke about German Shepherds as aggressive, nervous, ugly, weak nerved dogs (though they assured you that your GSD mixes are "quite lovely"), that would not rub you the right way, either


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Equinox said:


> dmickle1, I like your questions and they help me learn as well (coming from someone who also loves German Shepherds). I'm not sure if Xeph thought you were referring to her dogs specifically or not, but from what I understand, she is trying to say that calling a dog deformed isn't tactful - regardless of whether or not the dog's owner is a member of this forum. A lot of what has been said are generalizations, and generalizations made about a certain line. In this case, American show line German Shepherds, which are Xeph's passion... her Rada is being an American show line German Shepherd.
> 
> It's not just you, though, it's something that's become increasingly frustrating because it is such a common practice here on DF. Find a picture of a GSD, and point to the dog and say "ooooh that frog dog is DEFORMED!". I am seeing more and more people referring to ALL American show lines as "frog dogs" when that is clearly not the case. If someone spoke about German Shepherds as aggressive, nervous, ugly, weak nerved dogs (though they assured you that your GSD mixes are "quite lovely"), that would not rub you the right way, either


I think my comments are being handled touchily because it's a touchy subject in general. I haven't once said 'that dog's deformed, how does it move!?'. I've said that dogs who are stacked to the extreme and are not physically able to straighten their hind legs fully, look deformed _to me_.

Yuck, "frog dog"? I would never use that terminology. I understand much more about stacking now and will definitely think twice about what I say about dogs who are simply posed that way for a photo. But when I see a dog that literally CANNOT stand four square, I will say that I think it looks deformed. 

Meh, lots of people around here don't like GSDs. In fact, even my BF calls Loki "batty" and says he looks ugly with his giant ears. The awesome thing about aesthetics is that we're all allowed to have our own opinions and none of us should be bashed for it. It's great that we don't all like angulated GSDs, otherwise breeding would boom because the demand would be so high and they'd be all over the place!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Someone else in the thread used thre term "frog dog", it's insulting to GSD owners and to those of us who love the breed.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Someone else in the thread used thre term "frog dog", it's insulting to GSD owners and to those of us who love the breed.


Must have read over that one. Otherwise I would have been like "what the heck is that supposed to mean?". 

What a horribly distasteful term. It's like a doggie racial slur.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

I always thought frog dog was when a dog lays down with his back legs spread out behind him... When I use it (in the prior manner) it is more of an endearing term because "frog dogs" as described previously in my post are so cute! 
I guess you learn something new every day.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Ferinstance? I know some breeds have more angulation than they probably need, but I can't think of any others with as much angulation and set up in as extreme a manner as the GSD. A thought on breed standards - I know in our breed, one thing that is being considered for change is shoulder angulation - currently listed as 45 degrees, which is not really what the dogs have and would probably change a lot we didn't want to change if it WERE attainable. Better technology allows us to know that which the originators of the standard did not know.


Irish Setters are what spring to my mind. Some of the other pointers and setters. You see it in Dobes sometimes too. In general, I would say excessive angulation and extreme stacks are largely a show dog thing. Certainly no one is saying there *aren't* GSDs that have way too much rear, but I don't think it's the norm. The really excessive dogs are the ones in every thread. I've seen BOTH the pictures shown here as examples of "frog dogs." I don't think that's a fault of the standard, I think that's what happens when you breed exclusively for the ring and not for functional ability as a whole.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

a bit of trivia...(if you know your pibbles...HUSH!)

Which dog is to standard?


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

I'd guess the third, because of the larger, blockier head and the wide chest. Then again, I could just be relying on my mental stereotype of what I think they should look like 

Not a huge fan of the cropped ears, though, and that's not why I chose that photo. In fact, I think the second dog is quite pretty


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

I personally really like the second but it looks like the first one has been bred which leads me to believe the first one, but I just don't like the body condition of the first whereas I like the condition of the second... (but I don't have much experience with breeding so please correct me if i'm wrong)

The third one is fine too, but not what I think when I think of a Pit Bull, but I guess its my own personal preference to not like the blockier dogs as much... But then again, they are not my breed of choice so I don't know much of them.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm still learning about Pit Bulls, but I'm going to go with pics 1 and 2 as my guess, Zim. Do I get a prize if I get it right?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

dmickle1 said:


> I'd guess the third, because of the larger, blockier head and the wide chest. Then again, I could just be relying on my mental stereotype of what I think they should look like
> 
> Not a huge fan of the cropped ears, though, and that's not why I chose that photo. In fact, I think the second dog is quite pretty


ALL THREE of them are to standard lol.

the first two are American Pit Bull Terriers, Adba and Ukc style respectively. the third is an Akc CH. Amstaff.

and its all the same ideal. there are dual registered UKC and ADBA champions. Akc differs a little bit and to my mind is less desirable as the bulk and the mass deviate from what a pit bull should be.

but the first two...the only difference is the Adba specifies that dogs be shown lean.

my point will follow presently...


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Ah, I was going to guess all three and then I second guessed myself! Lol


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> Obviously not everyone is doing this, but I think that breeding any animal intentionally in a way that will damage its quality of life or life expectancy is cruel. As far as a remedy... I'm not really sure what the best approach would be. The political issues are incredibly complicated, plus each breed has its own issues (if it has issues) and culture and history.
> 
> I'm more concerned about loss of genetic variation, personally. I think inbreeding (within a certain number of generations -- not sure of best number, maybe 10? 20?) should be illegal. I think this would also reduce the popular sire issues because not being able to breed their offspring together would have a corrective effect. Even with that, though, some breeds just don't seem to have enough genetic variability to survive with a closed gene pool. You have to think one hundred years into the future. Our winnowing down of genetic variation through selective breeding is just going to make the health problems worse.
> 
> One caveat to this post is that my real-world experience with purebred dogs and the world of breeding and competing with them is very limited. There could be many other factors that I'm not aware of.


If the AR have their way, one hundred years in the future, there won't be any purebred dogs (probably not any dogs) that we need to be concerned about. I honestly don't think anyone pursues the objectives of making dogs less functional, less healthy or decreasing their quality or length of life. I don't think that the WORST breeder in the world does that, and certainly the better breeders do not. They breed towards an ideal, and as with all things sometimes the ideal may be more in the mind than in nature. And there may be things about that ideal that create unexpected dilemmas. You don't know how A is going to effect B until it happens, sometimes. Features that may enhance soundness and performance in a certain dose may inhibit it if a little more or a little less is present. Breeding is both art and science but not perfect or absolute. If we don't have dogs who are bred to a standard and an ideal, we have little medium sized, short coated, curly tailed village dogs which are what dogs revert to if humans are not messing with their genetics. They are cute, but I don't particularly choose to own one.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

My dogs have been called all sorts of nasty things by people. Strauss was dumped on because he's largely German bred, Mirada is dumped on because she's one of those "deformed American dogs".

It's been a hot day, my TS is in overdrive, and thanks to a possible breed split of the white GSD from the rest of the Shepherds, I'll admit, I am not in a particularly great mood. Especially when these discussions ALWAYS end up with the Shepherds on stage as one of the worst examples of breed exaggeration.

Anybody that has read my threads on here about Rada as she has grown, knows what I feel her good points and bad points are structurally. I am always honest about what my dogs virtues are, and what they lack, but it does get to me, even if it is indirect, to have the lines my dogs come from called useless, deformed, pathetic, and worthless.

I work very very hard to prove that my dogs CAN work and do performance. It is IMPORTANT to me that they do. The majority of AmLine fanciers do not, and will not work their dogs, because they don't have to, and "they're not interested".

It is my arrogant opinion that if you're not interested in the working aspect of the German Shepherd Dog, then you're not interested in the German Shepherd Dog itself (please note this in regards to BREEDING not pet owners). It's something that SERIOUSLY bothers me.

I went to the Eichenluft party again this year, and EVERY year there is a bitework session for all dogs and handlers that wish to participate. Mirada participated in her first bite work circle at 4 months old. She was the only American dog in the group.

She participated again this year at 17 months old....and I actually got complimented on her drives and grips. Does she grip as well as a working line? No. Genetically (and to some degree, structurally) she cannot....but she does have the fight in her, and the prey drive to go after that tug, fall flat on her face, and not give a crap.

The Eichenluft party is a party for people who bought or will be buying dogs from the breeder....they are ENTIRELY working lines. So I have my lone American line girl (aside from beautiful 12 year old Ellie who I love to see) in a sea of working lines.

If more people bothered to be interested in the working aspect of this breed on the AmLine side....I think there would be many more Mirada's. I cultivated her drives from the MOMENT she set foot on our property, and made sure not to squash them. I worked very hard to build her confidence in new situations, and keep it up, regardless of circumstances.

She's dysplastic, but a lot more functional than some dogs I see in the show ring. Her biggest problems physically that involve her structure, is that it can be slightly harder for her to make sharp turns. She is more likely to take a digger....but she does not quit just because she fell. She continues working (as a good Shepherd should).

You will also be hard pressed to find real life Shepherds using anything other than their OWN breeding for sheep tending (if that's what they do). Many will not incorporate modern day working lines into their breeding/working programs. Know why? Prey drive has gotten OUT of control, and there are many dogs out there who would rather eat mutton than herd it.

There are some beautifully structured animals out there, and there are some bloody uggos, but in one of my original posts with all the Shepherds that met the AKC standard, the first two kinds of dog are much more common than the last.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Ah, yes, the "AR" boogeyman... Should've known it was only a matter of time before someone invoked it.

I wasn't saying that people shouldn't breed with a purpose in mind; far from it. This was done for aeons, far longer than the current situation. There were no "purebreeds" and registries in the modern sense, more like categories or types. Like alaskan huskies. You can breed to a purpose and a standard and an ideal without inbreeding, and without closed registries.

Perhaps it's easier for me to take this view because I'm not super strongly attached to a particular breed. But I think that just gives me more perspective. Anyway, I don't mean to offend anyone who loves purebred dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> a bit of trivia...(if you know your pibbles...HUSH!)
> 
> Which dog is to standard?


When it comes to something Pits are still very commonly used for...... 

1) The first bitch is the SHIZNIT..... If she is game to go along with the looks, she would be a hog catching machine!

2) That dog might catch, but it is going to take a beating and a decent hog is going to put a hurting on it. 

3) Dog number three would get his butt kicked by a small hog and an average boar would cut him to pieces and possible kill him.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> When it comes to something Pits are still very commonly used for......
> 
> 1) The first bitch is the SHIZNIT..... If she is game to go along with the looks, she would be a hog catching machine!
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, what makes you say that?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> Out of curiosity, what makes you say that?


unevenly distributed bulk decreases agility in regards to the amstaff.

the second dog i disagree. but not for physical reasons.

(im still amassing appropriate pix. will post the next piece to what i was saying in a few)


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> When it comes to something Pits are still very commonly used for......
> 
> 1) The first bitch is the SHIZNIT..... If she is game to go along with the looks, she would be a hog catching machine!
> 
> 2) That dog might catch, but it is going to take a beating and a decent hog is going to put a hurting on it.


Do explain, I don't understand why a dog one would do better than dog two.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> Out of curiosity, what makes you say that?


I used some assumptions....

First I assumed all the dogs were game....... When it comes to hog dogs, fear kills. 

Second I assumed they were all sound animals. 

Those Assumptions aside, the first dog is going to be the most agile. If she is as sound as she looks she can turn a 360 in her own length, has a 5 foot vertical leap, and has the best stamina. (stamina is Very important) 

The second dog is soft and not in prime condition. He could be a LOT better if he was conditioned to the point of the first dog. Take 5-10 pounds off that dog and put is on a spring pole and treadmill daily and it might tighten up. As he stands right now he could probably easily catch shoats and young barrs. But a 100 pound boar would eat him a new one.....


The third dog.... Has no chance. I would never put a dog built like that on a hog and would not hunt with someone that would. Better to go pick up a fiesty mongrel (That is done and I have seen some good ones) His wide chest and over exageration will greatly affect his agility and speed. He looks tough but he ain't. 

He doesn't have enough neck, preventing him from keep his body away from the cutters. 

Stamina is going to be an issue with that chest and build.

And that big pretty chest is a HUGE target for the hog. WAY too wide and too much room for cutting. A smart hog is going to go right at him, and try to duck his head down in that chest. The dog probably can't dodge out of the way. The dog can bite at the hog's shoulders all he wants, Nothing to hurt there. Meanwhile the hog will be wrecking that chest.....


Look at it this way..... 

Dog three is a body builder..... He may look dang good oiled up and on stage. But put him in a ring with Kimbo Slice and he is going down hard.

Dog two is like that guy that works out in the gym a few days a week and then goes to the bar wearing tight shirts and banging his chest..... He may intimidate some of the bar regulars and might even win a scrap or two..... But let him cross that 50 year old truck mechanic with a beard that came riding in on the 20 year old Harley.... He is going to end up eating out of a straw for a year....


Dog one is like a well conditioned MMA fighter.... It is built to go the distance..


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

purebred dogs are being ruined by breeding to a show standard period. that has been my opinion long before PDE ever existed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Miss Bugs said:


> purebred dogs are being ruined by breeding to a show standard period. that has been my opinion long before PDE ever existed.


There is no such thing as a "show standard"


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

so my point is gonna have to work without pics for the moment but JohnnyBandit did me a favor..

each of those dogs are bred toward an almost identical standard...and yet what gets awarded in the show ring is very different from registry to registry..and produces high variability in ability.

the reason is that each is interpreting the standard through a specific lens. 

the Adba's focus is on what we call "game dogs". working animals that have the drive and physical ability to be ultimate canine atheletes. they decry the kind of change the AKC embraces. the UKC is a sort of middle ground between the two. generally speaking.

the point is that the standard itself is just a document. it can be taken different ways based on biases. some biases are good. some are not so good. the show ring is just an event. the only power it has to change anything within a breed is the power people give it to. the emphasis they place on it.

its PEOPLE that are the problem. uneducated/misinformed/uncaring people that screw breeds up. you wouldnt believe some of the physically ridiculous nonsense you get out of some people who think they cango anywhere with their biases and still produce the kind of pit bull that can do what its supposed to...which is just about anything. they'll win in AKC. they might win in UKC. ive seen them laughed out of the ring in ADBA. 

you want to fix things...stop focusing on the things that arent issues...changing standards...biased judging..those are symptoms. the problem is mentality and how it colors interpretation


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

WOW... everyone has been busy! Sorry for skipping out... I have a sick pup over here (severe dermitological allergy).

I hope I do not repeat anyone, if so... I really DO apologize!



Pawzk9 said:


> GSDs are bred to keep stock withing a "boundary" as in the dog acting as a living fence. Dogs like Border Collies, Aussies, Kelpies and ACDs are bred to move stock from place to place. That doesn't mean I think that all the dogs who are bred to win in the show ring would also be the most efficient working dogs.


Then why don't BCs, Aussies or Kelpies have such an exaggeratedly sloped back? They have just a slight decline.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Then why don't BCs, Aussies or Kelpies have such an exaggeratedly sloped back?


Because the standards are nowhere near the same, and call for completely different builds because the dogs do COMPLETELY different jobs.

If all the standards said the same thing, we'd have one kind of dog.


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this may sound snooty but its not intended to be...
> 
> the standards that do get.changed like that...pretty much all seem to be companion/toy types. because there's nothing in the job description of companion/toy lap dog that necessitates any kind of moderation at all. working breeds should still be able to work and that limits the aesthetic factor.
> 
> though with my breed, the standard is kind of interesting. the functional aspect of the dog is strictly, rigorously and anal retentively outlined while traits like coat color and ear set are basically a free for all barring two dq in colors and a "preference" in ear set to cite two of the aesthetic traits that are sort of loosely described. it tends towards extreme variarion in individual type and strict uniformity in functional type.


Not to sound snarky... but the APBT is not really a registered breed with any of the main clubs as of yet. So, needless to say, they have not yet been standardized to the extent most others have been

I may be wrong, but you seem to think Staffordshires and pitts are the same breed of dog and they are not.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Um....yes it is. UKC is considered a respectable organization, and has been around as long (if not a bit longer, I believe) than AKC.

Zim is also the last person I'd preach to about APBTs...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this may sound snooty but its not intended to be...
> 
> the standards that do get.changed like that...pretty much all seem to be companion/toy types. because there's nothing in the job description of companion/toy lap dog that necessitates any kind of moderation at all. working breeds should still be able to work and that limits the aesthetic factor.


Nah there are other random ones too, especially when it comes to colors/markings. Like the white requirements on tollers nowadays and the DQing of blue weims pop to mind. Papillons have changed to disallow some colors but my research seems to show those colors disappeared well before the standard changed. No one I know of in the breed knows how or why. I have my theories of course. 

A lot of what you see though is ring trend more than anything. I can find a lot of really short legged papillons that are winning and winning big but it doesn't mean the breed is necessarily headed that way. (Though it concerns me). I can also find many that are almost square (standard specifies slightly longer than tall)). It seems a lot of these examples are the worst of the worst.

But I do need to vent a minute. Both BCs and papillons are supposed to be slightly longer than tall and both breeds I'm now seeing trends where the dogs are INCREDIBLY short in the leg. WTF is this? These are supposed to both be athletic breeds. They can't be if they have no legs.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Fuzzybutts said:


> Not to sound snarky... but the APBT is not really a registered breed with any of the main clubs as of yet. So, needless to say, they have not yet been standardized to the extent most others have been
> 
> I may be wrong, but you seem to think Staffordshires and pitts are the same breed of dog and they are not.


Wait.. WHAT?

I think you really REALLY need to learn some history before you say such things. The United Kennel Club which IS a respectable kennel club was started BECAUSE of the American Pit Bull Terrier. It then expanded to other breeds. When the breed was brought to the American Kennel Club, they wanted NOTHING to do with their past dog fighting history, so they enrolled the breed as the American Staffordshire Terrier. AST=APBTs although now of days the AST is getting closer and closer to it's own breed. As long as you can win in an AKC ring then in the UKC they are the same breed. 

So in short the APBT has been around for hundreds of years while the AST has only been around for 60 or so years. 

Now Staffordshire Bull Terrier are a totally different breed all together.

And just and FYI: IT'S NOT SPELLED PITTS! It's PIT One T NOT two! Pit as in a hole in the ground, as in a fighting pit. PIT PIT PIT PIT *PIT*


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Um....yes it is. UKC is considered a respectable organization, and has been around as long (if not a bit longer, I believe) than AKC.


Thusly noted... xanax wins again. I am really not myself. What a day!

And I have absolutely no personal quarrel with Zim, and should hope she does not have anything personal against me either. 

I am a big fan of bully breeds myself. Unfortuniately I am allergic to short haired dogs (contact dermatitis due to hairs being stiff enough to get under the first layer of my rediculously sensitive skin).Would it not be for the allergy, they would be one of my first breed choices. I LOVE their "smiling" faces!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I think it's interesting the GSD is always jumped on in these "angular" debates. Talk a Dachshund.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Cardi Corgwyn too! Pems don't seem to have the same angles, but some Cardis sure got some rear on em!


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Darkmoon...

Would you like to tar and feather me now? Or can it wait until morning so I can deal with my miserable pup? :yield: LOL

I got ya.

There is an old Buddhist saying that fits this you know:
"There is no need to use an axe to remove a fly from the forehead of a friend."


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> "There is no need to use an axe to remove a fly from the forehead of a friend."


I think it's ok to use the axe if you're PMSing


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I think it's ok to use the axe if you're PMSing


(will assume you are kidding)

Nah... then your karma runns over your dogma! :eyebrows:


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

youre wrong Fuzzybutts.

both the UKC and the ADBA are reputable registries. the idea that the AKC is the only reputable registry is complete and utter garbage. if anything..when it comes to pit bulls...the ADBA and UKC are MORE REPUTABLE than AKC. because they have done a far superior job of preserving the pit dog...the American Pit Bull Terrier is the parent breed of the Amstaff and until very recently..there was a lot of cross registering going on.

dont talk out of your fuzzy butt lol. especially when you havent done a lick of research. which is evidence by your post.

here..to get you started...

www.apbtconformation.com


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

Why do Papillions have to have frilly ears? I don't get that. Definately puts too much pressure on their ear cartilage and skull to have all that excess baggage. I don't understand why people breed them that way.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Bones said:


> Why do Papillions have to have frilly ears? I don't get that. Definately puts too much pressure on their ear cartilage and skull to have all that excess baggage. I don't understand why people breed them that way.


Mine can barely hold her head up! The fringe is pretty, though, so she can deal with it.

(Troublemaker )

In all honesty, though, papillons were originally bred to hunt gremlins. They needed to have the appearance of huge ears to fool the gremlins into thinking the dog was one of them, so that they could attack when the gremlins least expected it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I always thought frog dog was when a dog lays down with his back legs spread out behind him... When I use it (in the prior manner) it is more of an endearing term because "frog dogs" as described previously in my post are so cute!
> I guess you learn something new every day.


I call Alice the frog dog when she kicks her back legs out behind her (also recently heard it referred to as the boneless chicken pose). I've also called a really adorable Frenchie in class the "frog dog". Had never heard it used in reference to GSDs.



Fuzzybutts said:


> Then why don't BCs, Aussies or Kelpies have such an exaggeratedly sloped back? They have just a slight decline.


Like I said in the quote that you quoted, they have different purposes.



Fuzzybutts said:


> Not to sound snarky... but the APBT is not really a registered breed with any of the main clubs as of yet. So, needless to say, they have not yet been standardized to the extent most others have been
> 
> I may be wrong, but you seem to think Staffordshires and pitts are the same breed of dog and they are not.


Define "main club". Pit bulls (not Pitts) and Am Staff come from exactly the same foundation. Until very recently many dogs were dual registered.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I call Alice the frog dog when she kicks her back legs out behind her (also recently heard it referred to as the boneless chicken pose). I've also called a really adorable Frenchie in class the "frog dog". Had never heard it used in reference to GSDs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I only heard it towards GSDs on this forum. I thought Frenchies were affectionately referred to as frog dogs. x.x


----------



## Fuzzybutts (Jul 21, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> youre wrong Fuzzybutts.
> 
> both the UKC and the ADBA are reputable registries. the idea that the AKC is the only reputable registry is complete and utter garbage. if anything..when it comes to pit bulls...the ADBA and UKC are MORE REPUTABLE than AKC. because they have done a far superior job of preserving the pit dog...the American Pit Bull Terrier is the parent breed of the Amstaff and until very recently..there was a lot of cross registering going on.
> 
> ...


I already conceeded that I had mispoken about the registry. But perhaps you were to busy blowing something out of YOUR fuzzy butt to notice.

Wow...
You cannot even debate something in a halfway civilized manner and then accuse ME of being ignorant. Interesting concept.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Here are angles for y'all. This is AKC GCH Wroyal Sarenity Vom Daxi Haus MLC. 











ETA: Ahehehe. Stance look familiar? Is this dog deformed?


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Like I said in the quote that you quoted, they have different purposes.


As I mentioned earlier in this thread, other "tending" breeds that work at a trot aren't bred with the same angulation as GSDs. I think the argument that they NEED to be angulated in order to work as a functional tender needs to go out the window. Even Xeph said earlier in the thread that she doesn't know why the GSD and not other herding breeds are angled in such a manner. 

Other tending breeds: Belgian Malinois, Belgian Sheepdogs, Belgian Tervurens, Bouvier des Flandres, Briards, Beaceron, Pyrenean Shepherds and Pulis.

None are shown stacked or bred for 45 degree angulation. Just looked them up, they are actually ALL shown square. 

As a side note - Loki doesn't stand four square naturally. While he doesn't have GSD angulation in his hindquarters, he definitely naturally stands in the "stacked" position. 

Xeph, I don't think anyone is trying to pick on your breed and it must be super obnoxious that every time show standards come up, GSDs do, too. I'm noticing that often they come up being discussed by people who are ignorant about the stacked stance (like me, earlier in this thread) and by people who aren't willing to listen and learn as to WHY they're standing like that. I think GSDs come up often because they are loved by so many people and are very common dogs. Well, well bred ones aren't too common. But lots of people have "pet" GSDs and mixes. 

Anyways, there are plenty of other breeds to pick on, namely a lot of the extremely Brachy dogs that are being shown these days.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Here are angles for y'all. This is AKC GCH Wroyal Sarenity Vom Daxi Haus MLC.
> 
> ETA: Ahehehe. Stance look familiar? Is this dog deformed?


The angulation is MUCH less noticeable because of the length of the hock as well as the coat length of the dog. While we've already gone through the fact that GSDs have straight spines, as does that Daschund, his spine is still WAY closer to parallel with the ground because of the shortness of his limbs, therefore creating a less exaggerated image.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Fuzzybutts said:


> I already conceeded that I had mispoken about the registry. But perhaps you were to busy blowing something out of YOUR fuzzy butt to notice.
> 
> Wow...
> You cannot even debate something in a halfway civilized manner and then accuse ME of being ignorant. Interesting concept.



im being perfectly civilized. 

you otoh...it seems cannot take a good natured joke. shame on me for being friendly. ill remember that next time.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Why do you keep saying 45 degree angulation? It's not 45 degrees....it's 90...and the German standard is 120 (though many of their WGSL are angulated just as much as the American dogs).


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> ETA: Ahehehe. Stance look familiar? Is this dog deformed?


Well, technically, YES, all Dachshunds are deformed. They're dwarfs.



dmickle1 said:


> As I mentioned earlier in this thread, other "tending" breeds that work at a trot aren't bred with the same angulation as GSDs. I think the argument that they NEED to be angulated in order to work as a functional tender needs to go out the window. Even Xeph said earlier in the thread that she doesn't know why the GSD and not other herding breeds are angled in such a manner.


You're mixing up a couple of concepts.

The "Flying trot" is characteristic of German Shepherds. They are one of the only breeds where crossing over (where the back legs cross over the front legs) is not only allowed, but necessary (curiously, the other breed is Brittanys, but that is slightly controversial based on an interpretation of one line of the standard). See Dingo for an example of BEAUTIFUL movement. The Flying Trot IS a functional gait, and while very few German Shepherds are still used for traditional German style tending, the best ones absolutely display it. The tending dog literally trots all day, he needs to cover as much ground with as little energy expenditure as possible. See: Boundary Instinct. Although this deals with instinct not structure, the read the description of how the dog works. It is NOTHING like eye sheepdog breeds (Border Collies, Kelpies (?)) or upright herders (Collies, etc). Even compare the Belgian breeds. Those dogs tend towards SQUARE, not rectangular. Of course they are going to be build different.

What Xeph said is no one knows why they are STACKED in the manner they are, the 3-point stack. No one knows why they are show in the pose that they are, not that no one knows why they are built that way in the first place. Everyone knows why they are built that way in the first place: to conserve energy in a ground eating trot. The reason why working line dogs are straighter in the rear is because they are primarily bred for police work/Schutzhund/bite sport, not tending. Selecting for a different purpose will change the look of the dog.

Is the amount of rear in AmLine dogs out of control? By and large, YES. But by the same token, many working line dogs are under angulated (straight in the rear) and that's not sound either. In my opinion, this comes from breed split. Breed split fractures a breed and the individual lines get taken to extremes. It takes dual purpose to keep a breed balanced. Another example of breed splits changing a breed is compare bench Labradors to field trial lines, and then compare them to Guide dog Labradors. The Guide dogs look almost like an average of the two.



> Other tending breeds: Belgian Malinois, Belgian Sheepdogs, Belgian Tervurens, Bouvier des Flandres, Briards, Beaceron, Pyrenean Shepherds and Pulis.
> 
> None are shown stacked or bred for 45 degree angulation. Just looked them up, they are actually ALL shown square.


When people talk about the angle of angulation, they are talking about the angle between the upper and lower thigh. The angle formed by the knee joint. NOT the angle of the back to the ground. MANY breeds are shown with a slight slope down the back: Dobes, Setters, Cockers, etc. It's more dramatic and eye catching in the show ring. Again, the 3-point stack is just a matter of custom. It's not really what's important. The fact that a breed is show in a 4-square stack is the norm. GSDs are the only (AFAIK) exception.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im being perfectly civilized.
> 
> you otoh...it seems cannot take a good natured joke. shame on me for being friendly. ill remember that next time.


I got the joke. 

*shrugs*
I enjoyed the APBT lesson from zim and JB. The mental image I have of the breed is #2 that you posted. The two girls I work with mirror him also.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Raegan, I want to marry you.

There was a drop dead gorgeous male at the shows I've been at for the last two days. I mean this dog was built BEYOND fabulously. He went winners dog for a major both days. I could have taken that dog out on sheep and kept him working and working and working, and he would tire (I hate it when people say "the dog doesn't tire") but he would not exhaust. He could pace himself and keep working.

Very few people liked that animal when the more extreme dogs showed up.

There was one dog with a beautiful front, but he could have knitted me a sweater going away. He was sickle hocked (stood on his hocks while standing pretty much) and he gaited off them. One woman commented that the judge couldn't see movement.

Really? That dog gaiting off his hocks has good movement? That dog wouldn't break down tending 200-400 sheep a day? That dog could leap a wall?

Please.

I like a dog with angles, but that does not mean I like a dysfunctional dog.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dmickle1 said:


> As I mentioned earlier in this thread, other "tending" breeds that work at a trot aren't bred with the same angulation as GSDs. I think the argument that they NEED to be angulated in order to work as a functional tender needs to go out the window. Even Xeph said earlier in the thread that she doesn't know why the GSD and not other herding breeds are angled in such a manner.
> 
> Other tending breeds: Belgian Malinois, Belgian Sheepdogs, Belgian Tervurens, Bouvier des Flandres, Briards, Beaceron, Pyrenean Shepherds and Pulis.
> 
> ...


Pyr Shepherds and Pulik are tending breeds? Really? Not the ones I've seen work. As to is a Dachshund deformed? Yeh. They are achondroplastic dwarfs The thing is, I don't want a dachshund or a corgi. And I don't want a show GSD. And I don't have to buy one. And the people who really do like that look can.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> In all honesty, though, papillons were originally bred to hunt gremlins. They needed to have the appearance of huge ears to fool the gremlins into thinking the dog was one of them, so that they could attack when the gremlins least expected it.


Best post of the thread. Hands down. Sorry guys, you've just been ninja'd by Gremlin-Hunting Papillons. I might need a Papillon after all...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have told you guys I googled gremlin once and ended up with a picture of Summer in the bath tub, right?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

At one time, there were a lot of gremlins in Europe. If you've ever seen the aptly-titled documentary "Gremlins," you'll know that you do not want an infestation of those things! Thanks to selective papillon breeding (for the biggest-eared dogs who were best at subterfuge), Europe is now gremlin-free.

(When my dad first saw Crystal, he told me she looked like Gizmo.)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Where do you think Mirada's nickname of Mogwai nickname came from?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> Well, technically, YES, all Dachshunds are deformed. They're dwarfs.


 Why are you ruining my post with truth and logic?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Equinox said:


> A sloping topline can still be a straight topline... the curvature in the German show line's topline as pictured is a "roach". The American show line you posted does not have a back parallel to the ground in the stack, but the back, I assure you, is still straight.
> 
> Out of curiosity (and curiosity only!), are you familiar with many, many shepherds (of the human variety) who use Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois as tending dogs on their herds of 300+ sheep? You seem to declare them the superior sheep dog, and I did see that you are in the Netherlands, so I could not help but wonder if Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois are the popular breed of choice there for shepherds.
> 
> ...


There are little to none American showlines here, only the roach backs I think look like frogs. Since I was the one who first mentioned the word in regard to the GSD, I'll elaborate; 

When I started getting into dogs and breeds and read a lot of information, I also came across the pictures and discussions about the GSD, the issue with the backs and all. Since all I saw was pictures and also read about the dogs being stacked and the argument that was used about the stacking, I thought the dogs were put that way to 'look pretty', I guessed opinions about what's pretty differs, right? I thought that all the fuss about it may have been overdone. Then I went to shows and saw for myself that those GSDs actually, really, looked that weird, even when they walked around 'normally', outside the ring. The first thought that entered my mind when I saw them in my first show was: they look like frogs. I said it out loud, my dad agreed, and I'm glad I didn't say it too loud so the GSD people could hear whom I don't think would have agreed. The comparison kinda stuck with me. Whenever I'd see a GSD with sloping back wobbling around, whether it be on shows, downtown or even in my own neighborhood, the word frog comes to mind. 
The kind of dogs shown here: gsd movement slomo are also seen at shows over here. Is it really so strange the word frog came to mind? 

I never meant it to intentionally hurt somebody's feelings, hence the 'sorry to those who own such a GSD' immediately after, so nobody would feel attacked or offended or something. Thought that this way, people wouldn't make a fuss over it, but I thought wrong. I'll repeat myself from my first post: 
Hope I haven't offended people, didn't mean to be rude. If I have, hereby my apologies. 
Then again, we're on a forum, everybody writes their opinion down. I don't think anyone should let things other people say get to them. Especially not my opinion, since it was never a personal attack. I hope I've made that clear now. 

Equinox, both your dog and your neighbor's dog look fairly normal dogs to me. Compared to the stuff I've witnessed, the pictures you've posted show good looking dogs (btw, I like Mirada's look too, Xeph) I just don't like the angles at all. When I said 'that's the same thing that came to my mind' at Mirada's pictures, I really did wonder. As I said before, pictures do not necessarily reflect reality, but I figured that when the roach GSDs turned out to be reality, the steep looking slope in the American show GSDs would too. But I've never seen them IRL, so I really do wonder if Mirada has her back at an angle (not parallel to the ground) even if she's standing around relaxed, not stacked, when she's walking around, etcetera. 

As for your question, Equinox, neither GSDs, Dutch Shepherds or Belgian Shepherds are used nowadays. 
It's probably not news to you (or maybe it is, I don't know how much non-Europeans learn about Europe) but in the past century our little country has become very, very crowded with people. And unlike what's probably popular belief, we do not all live in Amsterdam  And unlike what's probably popular belief too, we don't all live on farms and mills. The most common living arrangements are houses called 'rijtjeshuizen' (terraced house? townhouse? I don't know how you'd call it), and they look like this and most cities are stacked with them:rijtjeshuis

The large flocks of sheep we've had once, are now long gone. There's simply no space anymore. Not to say there's no nature at all, but about every tree, bush and patch of grass is man-made. There are very, very few places that still have 'original' nature, untouched by mankind. Though actually, I dare say there are no such places left here. And we're expanding still... I'm seriously thinking about moving in the future. Maybe to Sweden. Lots of nature there. 

There are small flocks of sheep being kept in confined areas. Sometimes they are moved from one area to another. This usually means that they need to be herded through towns and cities, like what happens occasionally in my city, last time was two weeks ago. The dogs that are being used are Collie type dogs. 

Woah, whole geo lesson here, sorry. I hope I answered your question. 
Oh, and Dutch Shepherds were indeed used when there was still work for them to do, along with Schapendoezen (Dutch Sheepdogs). Nowadays, they're versatile companion, guard and police dogs. 

As I said before, in the very beginning, type didn't differ very much between the German, Belgian and Dutch herding dogs. They were later given different names, by region/country, and were developed on their own, apart from one another. Type started to differ, eventually leading to the difference we know today between the breeds. They're really similar in origin, so the reason why only the GSD went through a drastic change? Beats me. 

Here are some pics of Dutch Shepherds by the way (longhaired and wirehaired). Note how similar they are to Belgian Groenendael and Laekenois, pictured below them. 






























And last but not least: the Malinois, Dutch (shorthaired) Shepherd and early German Shepherd (here: Aribert von Grafrath). Don't know about you lot, but I find them to be strikingly similar. 
























The GSD sure has come a long way  A couple of persons mentioned they wouldn't take an early GSD. I happen to like the older version better. In the end, it's all just a matter of opinions.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> so the reason why only the GSD went through a drastic change? Beats me.


Popularity



> so I really do wonder if Mirada has her back at an angle


When she's just standing around, no, not really. There is a slight one...but it's that way in both my dogs. In decently angulated GSDs in general (and I'm not talking about American show lines). I do not like curved toplines in GSDs. They are incorrect, and when they stand around, that curvature will not go away, no. The standard states they are incorrect. I do not know why judges in Germany (or the judges that are brought here to the states from Germany) call a roachy topline correct when it is in the standard that it's not.

That said, there are some beautiful structured Euro show lines. 4thedawgs on this board has a beautiful young male named Havoc. Andrjuscha van Noort, who I posted earlier, is also very nice. Frankie and Francesco Anrebri (working lines) are very nicely structured dogs.

I could go on and on and on.


----------



## dmickle1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Xeph said:


> That said, there are some beautiful structured Euro show lines. * 4thedawgs on this board has a beautiful young male named Havoc.* Andrjuscha van Noort, who I posted earlier, is also very nice. Frankie and Francesco Anrebri (working lines) are very nicely structured dogs.


One thing about you GSD owners - you always have awesome names for your dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FRANKIE!! ♡♥♡♥♡

and im TOTALLY not a GSD person.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Frankie and Francesco (Frankie son) are effing FABULOUS! Structurally and in the work.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

It can but thats not the real problem. There are a few standards that are extreme but many are not. Therefore it is a problem with breeders and judges as well. There are standards which are not extreme nor changed but breeders breed to an extreme trend and judges put those dogs up. 

No you dont need show champs to be a good breeder. There are working breeds bred for working and sporting purpose.


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> yes conformation show standards...in pit bulls that tells you
> 
> if the dog is structurally sound. (very important)
> the breeder shows interest in working with their dogs as opposed to breeding pet dogs willy nilly.
> ...


I mostly except on the matter of hot dogs they can be shown. It wont automatically exempt a dog from the show ring.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I believe that is true to some extent, there is "show" lines & "working" lines, there should be no such split, it makes no sense. Also certain breeds of dogs have it in their standards that its ok to have scars, or missing teeth etc... But I would be willing to bet those dogs dont win .

I mean what's the point of breeding a dog if their form of function can't be tested?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> But I would be willing to bet those dogs dont win


They do, but those scars are generally covered with chalk, or nose blackener.



> I mean what's the point of breeding a dog if their form of function can't be tested?


It can be tested. The issue isn't a lack of tests, it's a lack of people being interested.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Also certain breeds of dogs have it in their standards that its ok to have scars, or missing teeth etc... But I would be willing to bet those dogs dont win .


One of my finished champions has a piece of her ear missing and a few chipped teeth, so it does happen. The ear is not as noticeable now as it was when she was younger.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> I believe that is true to some extent, there is "show" lines & "working" lines, there should be no such split, it makes no sense. Also certain breeds of dogs have it in their standards that its ok to have scars, or missing teeth etc... But I would be willing to bet those dogs dont win .
> 
> I mean what's the point of breeding a dog if their form of function can't be tested?


I dont like the idea of spits either a standard should be based on the working dog. It is in some breeds you very well have dogs which are both show and working dogs. 

My boy has a few scares and is missing part of his lip (not too noticably now)due to a kennel accident at his co owners. He consistantly places. 
His dam has a scare on her head from since she was 6 months old. She is a CH made it fairly easily.
His grand sire also has few scares and made CH fairly quickly.

Teeth are very important in my breed so it can be harder to finish a dog with missing, worn down or broken teeth. Though its not impossible to win Ive noted they may not do as well as they did prior to ruining their teeth however. 

Ive noticed some people who dont know about showing or breeding having no experience tend to have some pretty strong opinions or make assumptions based on what they believe because they heard it or off a few breeders or whats going on in a handful of breeds or under a single org


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I disagree. I think it is in the ring that problems arise. Its like in the Quarter horse world in the western pleasure world. Horses with lower noses and worse shuffleing gaits started winning. Now we have horses that are peanut rollers and cant take a sound step. This is because the horses that won shuffled and were peanut rollers. (I don't want to start an arguement about this, but it was a good example.)
> 
> Like the Quarter Horse world, the Dog show world prizes exaggerated specimens of breeds, then those dogs that have those traits that the winning dog had as well as the winning dogs are bred to pass along more of the exaggerated traits. This may start out as a slight difference that pleased that judges eye but it grows into something bigger.
> 
> Therefore I do believe that the show ring does have as much blame in this as the breeders do.


That's an excellent example. Halter QH's are built in a way that they are guarenteed not to stay sound doing anything performance related. Heck, they won't stay sound just being casually ridden. Then you have where the look was derived from a genetic defect that causes seizures and sudden death, yet was rewarded in the show ring. They actually pinned a halter horse at a show that had a seizure in the ring a year or so ago.

Look at some of the German Sheps, that look lame, because of their build. Cavaliers that were bred to have tiny heads that caused excruciating pain, etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spotted nikes said:


> That's an excellent example. Halter QH's are built in a way that they are guarenteed not to stay sound doing anything performance related. Heck, they won't stay sound just being casually ridden. Then you have where the look was derived from a genetic defect that causes seizures and sudden death, yet was rewarded in the show ring. They actually pinned a halter horse at a show that had a seizure in the ring a year or so ago.
> 
> Look at some of the German Sheps, that look lame, because of their build. Cavaliers that were bred to have tiny heads that caused excruciating pain, etc.


I haven't seen anything that said that the desired "look" causes HYPP. But that Impressive was a sire who was used a lot, and as his bloodline started being doubled up on, the problem emerged. Likewise I've never seen a CKCS with a tiny head. But there is certainly a problem. Here's a great article on popular sires and impressive syndrome http://www.canine-genetics.com/Popular_sires.htm
I don't think anyone sets out to breed bad or sickly or deformed dogs. (Or horses). I do think the venues which require some working certification and health certifications before allowing dogs to complete conformation CHs. do have a better idea. Many people look at the conformation ring as a test of breed-worthiness. But it really only looks at one dimension. Still, even if that's done, there are still going to be problems because nature doesn't plan for all animals to be "perfect"


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

spotted nikes said:


> That's an excellent example. Halter QH's are built in a way that they are guarenteed not to stay sound doing anything performance related. Heck, they won't stay sound just being casually ridden. Then you have where the look was derived from a genetic defect that causes seizures and sudden death, yet was rewarded in the show ring. They actually pinned a halter horse at a show that had a seizure in the ring a year or so ago.
> 
> Look at some of the German Sheps, that look lame, because of their build. Cavaliers that were bred to have tiny heads that caused excruciating pain, etc.


Not all halter horses are like that. My mare was halter breed and her dad was a 3 time world champion. He looked like a normal performance bred horse. He did have impressive lines 2.


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Cardi Corgwyn too! Pems don't seem to have the same angles, but some Cardis sure got some rear on em!


I've found that the Cardis seem to be a bit longer than the Pems - and the one thing that has turned me off to Cardis is their bowed front. The best explanation I've found for this is so the dog has room for its forechest, but I have a hard time accepting those bowed front legs. But to each their own - I just own the corgi breed I prefer. End of story.

Granted I may be biased, as I have an excellent, structurally sound Pembroke at home to admire.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

It is still the breeders they ar breeding for those types. Yes the judges are to blame too for putting up what is trendy. Sometimes standards dont change even if the looks do. Though its still a problem with the judges and the ring. Breeders need to breed for the ideal and judges need to place correct dogs. Its not a problem in all breeds which means it doesnt have to happen.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Spicy1_VV said:


> It is still the breeders they ar breeding for those types. Yes the judges are to blame too for putting up what is trendy. Sometimes standards dont change even if the looks do. Though its still a problem with the judges and the ring. Breeders need to breed for the ideal and judges need to place correct dogs. Its not a problem in all breeds which means it doesnt have to happen.


In their minds, they may be breeding for/judging to select the ideal. Their "ideal" may be different from your "ideal"


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> I believe that is true to some extent, there is "show" lines & "working" lines, there should be no such split, it makes no sense. Also certain breeds of dogs have it in their standards that its ok to have scars, or missing teeth etc... But I would be willing to bet those dogs dont win .
> 
> I mean what's the point of breeding a dog if their form of function can't be tested?


Actually lots of dogs in certain breeds win with battle scars and war wounds.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I haven't seen anything that said that the desired "look" causes HYPP. But that Impressive was a sire who was used a lot, and as his bloodline started being doubled up on, the problem emerged. Likewise I've never seen a CKCS with a tiny head. But there is certainly a problem. Here's a great article on popular sires and impressive syndrome http://www.canine-genetics.com/Popular_sires.htm
> I don't think anyone sets out to breed bad or sickly or deformed dogs. (Or horses). I do think the venues which require some working certification and health certifications before allowing dogs to complete conformation CHs. do have a better idea. Many people look at the conformation ring as a test of breed-worthiness. But it really only looks at one dimension. Still, even if that's done, there are still going to be problems because nature doesn't plan for all animals to be "perfect"


Hypp horses tend to genetically have more muscular bodies, so Hypp pos horses were/are popular in the QH halter world.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> and the one thing that has turned me off to Cardis is their bowed front.


The people I would buy a Cardi from have Cardis with VERY nice fronts. They do toe out slightly, but nowhere near the extreme of some of the big winners. Very very sound dogs with MACH titles and the like.

I prefer Cardis myself, both for their temperaments and their wider color options. That said, I can definitely appreciate a well built Pem! I do not like the trend for overly long sausages in Cardis, and I'm hoping they start to shorten back up a bit,


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Here's a picture of an AKC champion standing naturally four square:









Here is the same dog set up:


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Here's a picture of an AKC champion standing naturally four square:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Xeph he is gorgeous. The two dogs behind him in the picture look cowhocked.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Here's a picture of an AKC champion standing naturally four square:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, to me that's just icky. I hate sickle hocks. I do have a very nice European bred GSD in class who can actually stand four-square without looking deformed. She probably wouldn't win in the local AKC shows, but she is attractive, athletic and sound. I do find in interesting that you find "extreme" unattractive in another breed, but not in your own. I prefer Cardi's to Pems in herding instinct and temperament (and also because I am a sucker for merles, though that's neither here nor there) but I wouldn't be interested in an achondroplastic breed.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't know which dog you're referring to in regards to sickle hocks.



> I do find in interesting that you find "extreme" unattractive in another breed, but not in your own.


Excuse me? If you have read any of my posts on GSDs EVER, you know that I'm not big on extreme animals, thanks.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

In any case, here's to hoping the judges like him up here, since he arrives tomorrow to be specialed


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> In their minds, they may be breeding for/judging to select the ideal. Their "ideal" may be different from your "ideal"


Hardly, except for a couple exceptions, breed trends are of no concern to me. I was making a point. There are breed drifts in physical type without the standard changing. The standard is the supposed "breed ideal" set by the breed clubs. Judges are supposed to judge by it when selecting winners and breeders attempt to produce animals close to it.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

When it comes to the APBT it is my concern. We can see that Pits havent undergone drastic change for the most part. However there are some which have, even though the standard is the same. If you see a true type, an AST and a Bullish type are all CH it clearly shows a lack of consistant type and disreguard for the standard. 
I think the UKC APBT may have done itself a huge mis service by closing the stud book.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I don't know which dog you're referring to in regards to sickle hocks.
> 
> 
> Excuse me? If you have read any of my posts on GSDs EVER, you know that I'm not big on extreme animals, thanks.


The first dog in line has sickle hocks. The other two have cow hocks (and probably sickle hocks as well). I haven't seen any American line show GSDs in years that I wouldn't consider extreme. I do think that interpretations of standards can be pretty varied, but in my interpretation, a dog who can't stand four square normally is extreme. Just my interpetation


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I haven't seen any American line show GSDs in years that I wouldn't consider extreme.


I guess that's where we differ...what constitutes extreme. The above dog is considered very moderate by many (some think he even needs more rear....I disagree).


----------



## Eli- (Jan 9, 2012)

I've spent hours reading this thread and other threads regarding the "slopping" back of GSD. I find it amazing how some owners can defend these "extreme" traits" through their own interpretations. Not to mention saying that dogs that posses such traits are "improving the breed." Laughable. And just because these GSD are bred to the "standard" doesn't mean that they are ideal for work. Being able to do a task means little if they aren't excelling at it. These show variety aren't doing that. If they are, I'd love to see some evidence. I have no qualms about being proven wrong.

The beauty of these modern GSD is subjective, but their functionality is not. Growing up I've never seen such dogs, only on dog shows. Majority of dogs that are being shown aren't a like to their working counterparts (if they're a working breed of course.) That's what happens when you breed for conformation and not function. I understand that there is supposed to be a slight angle, but vast majority of the pictures posted show more than slight angle and I don't see how that is beneficial for their work. If it was TRULY beneficial, some of the most elite working GSD would look a like to the show variety--they overwhelmingly do not. 


Also, it's interesting that someone decided to bring up the APBT. The APBT (of the gamedog stock) wasn't bred for its appearance in anyway. Their physical standard evolved due to their purpose (dogs between 30-60 lbs usually.) Which is why their appearance differs depending on the bloodline. Some are more "terrierish" in appearance, while others are more "bulldoggy." These differences are quite extreme, something I don't see too often in other breeds. Truly a dog bred for function as opposed to a dog bred to LOOK like it can get the job done. Anyways, the breeders of such APBT often find themselves outcrossing to other bloodlines to add traits a particular gamedog lacks. For example, jaw strength and wind. 

I don't mean to come off as brash but that's just my two cents.


----------

