Shiloh Shepherds...Warlock/King Dobermans - Page 18

This...OR These?

To each there own .Beauty is in the eye of the beholder the owner and the breeder.

This thread reminds me of the guy whose friends tried to convince him that he could "do better" than his wife.  There is no logic to it, but plenty of hurt feelings.  Are you going to debate blondes versus brunettes forever?

As for the supposed argument: one, Ms. Barber is falsely claiming to do something she isn't and two, her dogs are an improvement according to some objective measure.  Let's start with #1.

Going way back to Beowulf:

Or an 1920s old style GSD: Erich Grafenwerth...

Clearly, this is NOT what is being re-created by Ms. Barber.  But, it is also NOT what any of you are trying to breed, as far as I know!  (Btw, I think Erich lived to be 14, so perhaps he IS what we should be breeding for.)

So this isn't really what this issue is about.   Let's move up to the 60s for another view of "old" (in this case American) type:

This is Yoncalla's Mike.  THIS may well be the type of dog a lot of us grew up with, at least in the US. 

Now compare this "old" type with the modern American showdog, D'Can's Raven of Fran San (why are the people so badly dressed?  But that is another matter):

For many American gsd buyers,THIS is the comparison they are making.  For the more knowledgeable, they might think of this dog as representative of modern type (Teejay, of course).

NOW: HONESTLY -- isn't it just possible that the Shiloh dogs are closer in type to Yoncalla's Mike then to Teejay (and certainly closer in type to Mike than to Raven?)

If you are not being hypercritical, Ms. Barber IS getting closer in structure with her big dogs to Mike than modern showdogs, so the claim she is making is not entirely unreasonable.  (But it IS subtle.)

Now, the addition of the long coat (which may not have been her original intention) does obfuscate things a bit.  But if Ms. Barber, a woman of extensive experience with gsd's and shilohs, is creating an underlying structure more like Mike than Teejay, she IS recreating what many people think of as an old fashioned shepherd - at least in part.

The excess size and coat should not be described as a re-creation, it's true.  (Even Beowulf and old Hektor/Horand were not long coated.)  And they were certainly not big. 

So perhaps this is not a black and white case?  Perhaps there are merits to both sides of the argument? 

Non disputandum gustibus est -- should it be left at that?

As for #2, as Shelley as wisely pointed out, there is a standard for good reasons.  But Shiloh does not purport to mee the gsd standard, it has it's own very substantively worked out standard.  Does it meet its own standard well?  Most of us are too ignorant of the breed to actually know, I would suggest.  It does seem odd that Ms. Barber does not publish hip data with OFA,  but it does seem as if she cares a great deal about hips, and health in general.

I must say that I think our reaction to the Shiloh is an over-reaction because the pups are so popular with the very pet families gsd breeders need to keep in the pool.  It's a competitive issue, not an ethical one.

For comparison, once again.

Closer to Mike?

Or Teejay?

I think the Shiloh people have a point.  Again, with some reservations made above.

No knee-jerk reactions, please!  Note that I am not saying the Shiloh dog is BETTER than Teejay -- I am saying it is indeed structurally closer to 1960s Mike than today's Teejay.

Dont want to get back into the other stuff on here but just want to say - excellent post MVF.

Altho' the Shiloh photo isnt a good comparison to Mike -  there are some smooth coat Shilohs being bred right now that look far more like Mike than Teejay does.  And there are some German Shepherds still being bred to the older lines. The problem is they dont get the awards in the breed ring & as long as breeders consider top honors in the breed ring better than working titles things aint gonna improve. 

So what is  wrong with trying to keep the old lines which WILL win in the breed ring by developing a dog with a different breed standard?

That's why I think this thread does belong on a German Shepherd forum - it is clear from many GSD forums that a lot of GSD breeders themselves (me included) dont like the direction the GSD is going.  It is for that reason some have jumped ship to the Shiloh camp so there IS a valid reason for discussing it here.  

Although I now have a Shiloh I have not turned my back on a great breed.  

MVF where are the "working lines" on your photo posts??? I wouldn't want any of the trash dogs you posted pics of. That Shilo is eck, ugly color, funky coat and Collie head. Even if it was smaller and within GSD standards, I'd pass. Then you go to the frog butts, what about the dogs inbetween? I can post photo's all day of nice looking correct dogs in the breed, no new breed needed or mixing of breeds to get level backs and normal angulation.

 I have been monitoring some of the shiloh lists and boards and guess what?  They DO not bother discussing their breed, so much as the usual pet bs:  one thread went on for dozens of posts about needing newspapers for a litter!!   Others are the "brags" and "oooh aah" about new puppy litters.    I guess they come to gsd boards for serious discussions? 

No "shocker" there Mystere, Shilo owners seem to be the "pet" type of owners obviously as non are titled. They want "safe" baby sitter dogs, not that a GSD can't also be that. Heaven forbid we have a dog with any drive, they are suck apain in the ass to care for.  Sounds as if they are a hype and a product of good marketing.

-Max V Stefanitz, 1925, Founder of the GSD     PP 380-381. 

'The Internationalism of the Big Bank Balance has been the downfall of the Shepherd dog.

When it comes to Breeding for Business - which is never effected by dealers, at least not by official dealers -, the dog is Only a business commodity and Nothing more, and is bred and treated as such. There again, we encounter another danger for the race. The dog is no longer bred from the point of view of his Services to the race, but Only because he has a certain Market value. In other words, the direction of the breed is influenced No longer by the experts, but by the Buyers.

"The breeding of shepherd dogs is the breeding of working dogs; and this must always be the aim, or we shall cease to produce shepherd dogs....
In order to have any chances of success at Exhibitions, breeding must be effected on a large scale; which can only be done in a regular Kennel. But breeding on a large scale and in a Kennel is the ruin of all sound shepherd dog breeding.

'Breeding in quantities must always become a curse to the breeder, because it leads him along the wrong path and deprives him of all real joy in his breeding.
Finally, it leads - and this is a further and very real danger for breeder and for the race - to breeding for business considerations only. It follows from the name, that this has nothing more to do with the dog-lover, or with the utility of the dog-race, and not even with Sport, which indeed has only been too often advanced as a cloak for such practices.

The buyer, however, is mostly an unsuspecting novice, or else one who knows or cares nothing for the weal or woe of the race as yet. He knows nothing of racial type, nothing of the value of aptitude for work, he often only has an eye for appearances and wishes his dog to be imposing and remarkable, and sometimes even a ruffling swashbuckler.

Dog-breeding must be the work of a dog lover, and cannot be a profession, as is the case with other animals, and a means of acquiring bread and butter. If it once becomes that, then it will be dog-dealing that has nothing more to do with serious dog breeding, but on the other hand, too often has to do with the law.

The work of breeding service dogs must, first and foremost, be the work of dog lovers... The dog lover in his breeding aspires after no material and external advantage.
He allows himself to be contented with the fact that association with noble, beautiful and gifted creatures, the observation of the phenomena of their lives, and the examination of all that happens in their breedings afford him a whole cycle of pure joys and contentment, and allow him to penetrate further into the secrets and the mysteries of Nature.

The Breeder on a smale scale, one who works with 1-2 bitches, is the most suitable breeder for service dogs, because he can care for his breeding animals & their progeny to such an extent that he can produce sound animals that can be trained.


I have already spoken at length of the curse of kennel-keeping.
Kennel breeding, however, doubles and multiples the evil, and irrevocably spoils all which comes under its influence. We shall hear more about this in what follows.
A large number of dogs can only be kept in a Kennel, but in so doing we heap up injury upon injury, because a large collection of shepherd dogs is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible to breed and keep shepherd dogs in herds, because they only become wild and deteriorate.'

Why knock Shiloh people from posting to a thread that was started to knock Shilohs & over sized Dobes? IF other breeds aren't to be discussed here, why wasn't that immediately made clear to the OP? Kinda bogus to start a thread to diss other breeds & then whine foul when defenders of one of those breeds posts to dispute what's being said...

FTR, I looked into Shilohs in the mid 90s & talked at length with a former well known breeder & a recent breeder. I wasn't impressed with where the breed seemed headed & decided they weren't for me. I'm not A Shiloh fan but if I dissed them on a public board I'd expect they might respond.