Out-crossing GSD with other breeds - Page 15

Sorry about the double post - have no clue what caused that!

So Do Right, tho you seem fairly passionate about proving that the GSD is of wolf origin, you actually say that you would not want to see wolf blood brought into the breed at this point. In that you and I can find a point of agreement. But if  you and I can see that even in these times when the GSD is facing serious problems within the breed and an ever increasing genetic bottleneck what could possibly make you think that VS would consider it especially when he had a much broader genetic base to choose from to find the traits and characteristics related to herding which he wished to develop and preserve?

Seriously it one is creating a herding dog what in the world could a wolf cross add that would make the downside of such a cross acceptable?  Can't see it myself.

I suspect VKF has had a good laugh re Wolfie . I also have to agree with VKF's quote "I'm never seen convincing evidence to prove that and I believe the SV denies it. Yes there have been in the past and even today dogs registered with the name Wolfie as well as bear and mouse and devil- doesn't mean they are those things."

If I am not mistaken DoRight said he did not promote bringing wolf blood back into the breed.  It is my opinion that he was trying to share the information from  the research he has done over the years.

The information concerning the differences in the old and new book was very interesting.  I would love to hear more of the comparisons.

TIG:  I guess that we have to agree to disagree.

I think that a wolf cross, even though I am against it, could bring herding instinct (afterall, in your own words, that is essentially what wolfs do to their prey).  Herding is linked mightily with prey drive.  Second and most important, I believe that a wolf croos could bring vigor, vitality and health genetically.  As I have stated numerous times, I am against it and DDR's argument is most of the reason.  There are many many GSD's that have nerve problems and this SEEMS much like the wolf/dog crosses that can be found around now, of recent crossings.

Stephanitz made a clear, highly detailed and well thought out argument that this should not happen, and why.  However, he does indicate that it should not happen AGAIN.  Now if we are going to subscribe to the theory that there may be translation problems (which is entirely possible), then we have to accept that those other "papers", quotes or whatever, that you site, can also have those same translation problems.  We can not pick and choose.  You already stated that you do not speak and read German.  Neither do I, so I do not think that we can go there and argue successfully, from either side.  It would take someone who is fluent in both to do that with merit.

I believe that the GSD, also known as the Police Dog, was known by that for a reason.  I also believe that the GSD, also known as the Wolf Dog or the Alsatian Wolf-Dog was known by those names for a reason.  No, not every rumor is true but generally, "where there is smoke there is fire" (another old dumb saying).

Stephanitz, baring a translation problem, clearly indicates that wolf blood was in the breed in the early stages.  You indicate that the SV would not lower themselves to answer a claim by  certain persons (named above), well I disagree with that completely.  It is not lowering yourself when yo are the premier organization of a certain subjet, in the entire world, and a "rumor" has persisted for over 90 years or more, that you would not address it.  Dresselhaus, Horowitz and Barber are just a very few who have made this claim of SOME wolf ancestry, and we do have to give them their "props" as they are mcuh more famous than you or I inthe would of dogs, and I am sure, would not make things up, even if they do have an agenda.  Facts can be misinterpreted, mis-construed and even twisted, but they can not generally be just plain makde up.  Not when there are organizations that could make you look like a fool or a liar easily, if you are such.

Under the law and legal system in the U.S., the "steps" to make and prove a case are thus:

First comes< "articulable suspicion", meaning that something is just not normal or right, and it peaks your interest.  An example would be that you see a goy walking back and forth on the sidewalk, in front of a bank.  Sure he could just be waiting for someone to pick him up, so it is not enough to do anything about except delve deeper.  To observe him more.

Then comes "probable cause".  In the example above, that could be something like this.  When the guy is walking back and forth on the sidewalk, he touchs his hand or elbow every few minutes on his right side.  On his hip.  All cops are taught that when someone is not one who normally carries a firearm in a holster or in their belt, and they are "up to no good", they have an unconscience tendency to constantly "touch" it with their elbow or hand, just to reassure themsleves that it is still there.  Now, this could also be an innocent thing such as checking a pager or cell phone to see if it is still there or vibrating.  But it gives you legal authority to go up to the next step.  Which is:

Cautious action and investigation, which proceeds arrest, and then conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in court.  Caution action and investigation:  At this point you do not have the authority to arrest, point your gun at him, or grab him.  But you do have the authority now to walk up to him and question him as to what he is doing walking back and forth in front of the bank.  You have the right to ask for identification.  If his answers or demeanor seem "slightly suspicious or nervous", and/or he refuses to identify himslelf well,  you have the right to pat him down for your own protection, checking him for weapons.  It would then go from there to whatever the outcome was of that pat down and questioning dictated.

So, where does that leave us in this argument.  In my mind, we are at the "probable cause" faze.  Not enough to convict but enough to investigate further.  It is the natural progression of "rumor" or "claims".  What is the alternative?  To just forget about it?  To just accept that if it was so, we would knoew for sure already?

It really is not that big of a deal in the big scheme of things, because we would all agree, that if wolf blood was used early on, it is mightily diluted now.  But, "inquiring minds want to know".  Anyone who is a member in good standing of the SV or of the USA, should have the right to demand an answer.

I'm just saying.

"do right and fear no one"

Is that really the motto of the stephaniz family?

Yes

Could you tell me where the information came from?

Thanks!

I have read it in many locations.  I just did a quick search of the net and here is a link to a RCMP site that references it.  There are many sites that state it.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pds/dog/hstr/hstr03_e.htm

"THE PRESENT STRUCTURE of The Canadian Kennel Club's studbook registry (and others like it) embodies a fallacy which is directly responsible for the current genetic crisis in purebred dogs: the fallacy of breed purity. The ideal of the purified lineage is seen as an end in itself; accordingly, the studbook has been structured to reflect and to enforce that ideal rigidly and absolutely. This insistence on absolute breed purity arises from nineteenth-century notions of the "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human aristocracies and thoroughbred horses; this same ideal, pushed to an illogical conclusion on the human plane, resulted in the now discredited "scientific racism" of the Nazis, who tried through selective human matings to breed an Aryan superman. The idea of the superior strain was that by "breeding the best to the best," employing sustained inbreeding and selection for "superior" qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce. Naturally the purified line must then be preserved from dilution and debasement by base-born stock. There is no support for this kind of racism in the findings of modern genetics -- in fact, quite the opposite: population groups that are numerically limited and closed to new genetic inflow are now thought practically certain to be genetically inferior. Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were degenerating rapidly under their own version of the "closed studbook.""

Quoted from, http://documents.seppalasleddogs.com/html-documents/pbdb21c.htm