Who objects to this dog being bred? - Page 5

Gustav, and Trafalgar !!  

Excellent !!

Jeff-----     Do you have any thing valuable objective to offer, or just pick at people ??

Between you and Doright and Sueincc, Yellow  in the other thread,  you did nothing but HIgh Jack it.

Some of us want to actually share thoughts and concepts   " OBJECTIVELY "  

With out quote references, and one liners.

"There are lots of other pix of that dog online, he looks different in pix taken in the summer. He is a very heavy coated dog, and yes, you can get some coats from a dog like that"

LMAO, Daniella, are you saying this dog is "NOT" a long coat? Than what keeps him from getting his breed survey? He is a heavy coated dog... LOL I love that....

Trafalgar Wrote,

"Regardless of the fact that "longcoat" is a disqualification does anyone here really consider it worse than a shy sharp dog?
Or an overly aggressive vicious dog? Or a dysplastic dog? Or a cancer ridden dog? Or a spooky nerve bag? "

The fact is non of these faults are breedworthy.. Some of course are worst that others but non the less they are all outside the standard...

That is it, nothing more to talk about.. "Unless" what? it's just this once, or I got to make my $$$$ back or I want to sell this dog to some stupid american.... What?

What makes some of these Germans say SV standard in one breath and this dogs coat is kinda thick and breedworthy in the next breath????? WTF 

This dog is unarguably not your ordinary GSD. I don't worship at the foot of the schutzhund gods but the best thing about it is that it is THE STANDARDIZED TEST for the breed in terms of potential working ability. The equivalent of the SAT, the LSAT, the GMAT or the MCAT  for GSDs. If this was a human taking the SAT, he would be in the top 99.99% of the test taking population.

Let's say for the moment that there are risks in breeding this dog in terms of hips, and a definite workaround needs to be taken for the longcoat. However, people already know how to increase the probability of breeding out those risks. So let's look at the assest and liabilities of this dog: Assets - unquestionable top working ability as defined in the breed, contributes to genetic diversity, not an ugly dog, reasonably good structure, many good to excellent dogs in the pedigree, major faults and risks already known; a verifiable production record; Liabilities - doesn't meet standard coat; some less than average hips in the pedigree.; you can get similar bloodlines from stock coated dogs.  Using their judgement, most people would not breed to this dog but hopefully some risk takers will. There is some risk to any breeding in terms of not getting results or worse, ending up with health problems.  Is there a marginally higher risk with this dog, I would say so but then the objective of the good breeder is to find a matching female that lowers the risk profile, while increasing the chances of getting the positives. I agree with one of the posts above that breeding this dog doesn't necessarily mean that every long-coat GSD will now start to be bred simply because most LC GSDs are not in the 99.99 percentile.

My folks used to tell me "Believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see" !  The standard, the almighty STANDARD, I see so much hypocrisy when it comes to breeding around the STANDARD. Why...You owned workingline dogs that are KK2, when you plan a breeding do you consider the Showline dogs that may excel in the area that caused your dog to be kk2. Why????? The breed survey that is based on the standard and the Sch 3 titles that you constantly preach to others are necssary to breed are all in place. You don't breed to the showline dog with the highest standard based on breed survey because YOU don't really have any faith in that survey or Sch title to convince you to use that dog for your dogs deficiencies. As a matter of fact I have seen these same working people go to another KK2 dog that won't even correct the issues that gave the first dog the KK2. If this standard which should be best exemplified by KK1 dogs, and showline dogs in particular for conformation faults, is so valid and necessary, why do you avoid dogs (showlines) with these highest attributes as assessed by the breed surveys like the plague!! You don't really believe in the system that evaluates these aspects or else your actions would be otherwise, at least sometimes. No, to me its the height of hypocrisy that people who preach to others that this survey and title is needed to determine breeding elgibility, themselves will not use the majority of the dogs with these certs and titles and surveys.( I know they use other working dogs that have these but the issue I bring up is the validity of these surveys and titles when it comes to breeding decisions by either group). Reverse, the equation, the showline people know they need improvement in nerve and drive yet won't go to dogs with BREED SURVEYS that say this particular dog will improve nerve or temperament or working ability.!!! Again, why????? I'm sorry until people practice what they preach to others in their own breeding practices, it really makes their advice ring HOLLOW!.

In my last posts I don't want to go down the show vs working dog, the ISSUE I am bringing up is the validity of this standard in reference to what breeders do based on this standard. And when I use the word standard then I mean BREED SURVEY, which is supposed to be the tool to determine standard. If this tool is valid, somebody explain breeding practices of showline and working people in avoiding each other when the Breed Survey says that the other camps dog will help your deficiences. Its a farce!! And thats fine but don't preach to me about it out of its context!!

If you have the SV Zuchtbücher or he SV ZW CD, you can look these up. The:

X litter v Welzbachtal is 2139648 - 652

X litter v Haus Pilzwege is 2162024 - 030

F litter vd Donnerbrücke is 2189225 - 226

B litter vd Riedbachsaue is 2198232 - 234

As for  the color for their papers, I don't know.

DDRspep, Gustav,  interesting thoughts. Gustav,  the KKL does not determine if the standard has been met. What determines the standard is the show rating. In Germany the dog goes to a Zuchtschau, a breed show, for a Zuchtbewertung, a breeding evaluation where the dog gets a rating according how closely it represents that standard, because at a breed show the dog is judged against the standard. It either passes, G and up, or fails. There are three levels of passing grades in order to accommodate dogs from the ideal (V) to not quite ideal but still good (G). G dogs often have flaws and the KKL report merely points them out again. Lets take one of the most recent KKL report entries to the DB. Picked randlomly, she just happened to be at the top of the list when I looked: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/290319.html - normal angulations, that is not ideal. Normal means ok but does not describe the best or the ideal. Croup and upper arm sufficiently long, that is not ideal, gaits adequate, that is not ideal... Lets go to her sire, prominent dog with a V rating, Troll - short croup. Her dam, its in English, no need to repeat it here, but that is a very interesting KKL report. Makes you wonder how that female ever got a show rating. But also has special remarks that TSB is very pronouced. Should she be DQ'd because of her flaws? The show judge did not think so and neither did the Koermaster and those are the one who say jay or nay. You will find flaws like these in a lot of working line dogs because most of them are bred for performance now and not so much to meet the ideal of the standard in terms of appearance, but to be a Good prepresentative of the breed still. IMO Kalle is a Good representative, at the very least.

Trafalgar,  there are argument for and against that. There are breeds that actively practise that way of breeding, breed every dog at least once, but not too often. On the surface the results are ok. Deeper down, you are loosing some of the traits because you also start to water down the gene pool. That does affect the breed standard. The breeds this is done with more frequently have a very loose standard, so the effects do weigh so heavily. In isolated populations in nature ie Galapagos or Madagaskar there has been no genetic bottleneck despite the inbreeding that isolation has forced on the local population. Before modern transportation there also was no genetic bottleneck in local populations of domestic animals.Only difference - the strong and healthy would survive and propagate. Even before modern transportation. People did not have the luxury to keep domestic stock alive for their hearts sake. With current human influence, human vanity decides what propagates, and that is not always the best.