This is a placeholder text
Group text
by DuvalGSD on 08 March 2010 - 19:03
Luv the pics guys,, they are some really nice dogs!!
by darylehret on 08 March 2010 - 20:03
There are many behavior characteristics that we select for in some working dogs, that if were a human, would be in the realm of obsessive-compulsive behavior. When behavior problems are a result of bad training, lack of stimulation, or whatever, this can lead to the development of neurological abnormalities. So, yes, I am saying that there are both genetic and environmental components to the behavior. Just as there are genetic and environmental components to other conditions, such as obesity. Without a combination of both, the phenotype might not be evident at all. And also, as you already stated, some genes are linked, so as to rid yourself of something undesireable, you might simultaneously deny yourself that characteristic you wish to retain.
by charlie319 on 09 March 2010 - 15:03
Just my two cents worth on the hypothetical "floppy ear question":
As usual Praeger's comments and observations are dead on.
If the dog had a floppy ear and was otherwise an exemplary specimen of outstanding breedidng, and if the dog (particularly a male) was from a line that was older or scarce to the point of near extinction, say a Cäsar von der Malmannsheide, an Ex vom Riedstern, or a Condor vom Falkenwappen lines dog (if there are any left), I'd certainly consider careful breeding to a dog that did not carry the gene at all. I'd neuter/spay any of the pups that display the trait and place them in pet homes or (if feasible) suitable service situations, effectively taking them out of the breeding pool. But I'd only consider it to keep a particular bloodline in existence. Even the ones that did not display the trait should be only sold/placed with very limited breeding rights (if any at all), to ensure that they too were bred only to dogs that did not carry the trait in question. In such a case, the breed's gentic diversity becomes the issue. Otherwise, we'll be more awash in overly linebred dogs than we already are..
IMPO, temperament should be the defining factor in pup selection, but that assumes that the buyer has done their due dilligence in selecting the litter. Dogs with good temperaments should not crack under stress, but the fact of the matter is that most people that purchase a GSD don't need, or want a SchH-3 candiadate, so the "temperament question involves how well the pup's temperament and behavioral makeup meshes with yours and the job he/she is slated to carry out. Part of the problem with some GSD's is that the buyers never see the pup and buy it because it is of this, or taht sire/line... Then they get more dog than they bargained for. Some breeders will tell you what they think you want to hear to move their litters.
As usual Praeger's comments and observations are dead on.
If the dog had a floppy ear and was otherwise an exemplary specimen of outstanding breedidng, and if the dog (particularly a male) was from a line that was older or scarce to the point of near extinction, say a Cäsar von der Malmannsheide, an Ex vom Riedstern, or a Condor vom Falkenwappen lines dog (if there are any left), I'd certainly consider careful breeding to a dog that did not carry the gene at all. I'd neuter/spay any of the pups that display the trait and place them in pet homes or (if feasible) suitable service situations, effectively taking them out of the breeding pool. But I'd only consider it to keep a particular bloodline in existence. Even the ones that did not display the trait should be only sold/placed with very limited breeding rights (if any at all), to ensure that they too were bred only to dogs that did not carry the trait in question. In such a case, the breed's gentic diversity becomes the issue. Otherwise, we'll be more awash in overly linebred dogs than we already are..
IMPO, temperament should be the defining factor in pup selection, but that assumes that the buyer has done their due dilligence in selecting the litter. Dogs with good temperaments should not crack under stress, but the fact of the matter is that most people that purchase a GSD don't need, or want a SchH-3 candiadate, so the "temperament question involves how well the pup's temperament and behavioral makeup meshes with yours and the job he/she is slated to carry out. Part of the problem with some GSD's is that the buyers never see the pup and buy it because it is of this, or taht sire/line... Then they get more dog than they bargained for. Some breeders will tell you what they think you want to hear to move their litters.
by Jenni78 on 09 March 2010 - 16:03
I agree with the original post and Hans' premise. I start to grind my teeth now when I get buyers who are only asking about hips, or color, or a myriad of other traits. I asked someone the other day if they wanted a crappy, pretty dog w/good hips, or if they wanted a good dog? These breeders who think they're "responsible" by breeding only dogs with good hips are missing the boat. Hips are just one point though; anytime you breed for ANYTHING but the complete dog you're trying to achieve, you are asking for trouble. What good is it to have great hips if you have mental instability? I like how people get away with breeding terrible examples of the breed, but are viewed as "good" breeders because their dogs are OFA'd and titled, and the person who pours their heart and soul into really researching, really trying to make good matches, get criticized as a BYB because they may breed an untitled dog, or even a dog w/questionable hips. IMO, proof is in the pudding when it comes to this, and I personally value the whole dog over any one particular part of him.
And also keep in mind the best producers of certain traits are not always the ones who display them personally. Many dogs produce better hips than they possess, and many dogs w/excellent hips don't produce well. I have said before and I'll continue to say it; if HD were as simple as OFA certification, we'd have it solved by now!
Charlie...what do you mean "if there are any left?" How close do you mean? I have Ex several times in my boy's ped.; I hadn't thought of that line as extinct at all, esp. through Ingo. As for Condor, he's there too- without having to click on any names to see him (meaning 7th gen. or closer)
And also keep in mind the best producers of certain traits are not always the ones who display them personally. Many dogs produce better hips than they possess, and many dogs w/excellent hips don't produce well. I have said before and I'll continue to say it; if HD were as simple as OFA certification, we'd have it solved by now!
Charlie...what do you mean "if there are any left?" How close do you mean? I have Ex several times in my boy's ped.; I hadn't thought of that line as extinct at all, esp. through Ingo. As for Condor, he's there too- without having to click on any names to see him (meaning 7th gen. or closer)
by charlie319 on 09 March 2010 - 18:03
Jenni:
I'm talking in the last 5 generations or closer, nor did I mean that those lines are extinct, but they are being displaced by others (Canto/Quanto come to mind) to the point that, as you've said, you have to go back to find them. I believe that we've already lost a lot of the genetic variety within the breed due to the comercialization not only of the breeding process, but the relaxation of standards in SchH among other measures to draw more lukewarm fans to the sport.
I'm a fan of the shepherd standards from the 1960's to about the mid 1980's. I find that many of today's breeders suffer from genetic nearsightedness and many view breeding as a business rather than an endeavor of constant improvement without changing the essential dog. Thus we end up with cycle after cycle of dogs bred for a handful of characteristics with scant attention paid to the dog as a whole.
I'm talking in the last 5 generations or closer, nor did I mean that those lines are extinct, but they are being displaced by others (Canto/Quanto come to mind) to the point that, as you've said, you have to go back to find them. I believe that we've already lost a lot of the genetic variety within the breed due to the comercialization not only of the breeding process, but the relaxation of standards in SchH among other measures to draw more lukewarm fans to the sport.
I'm a fan of the shepherd standards from the 1960's to about the mid 1980's. I find that many of today's breeders suffer from genetic nearsightedness and many view breeding as a business rather than an endeavor of constant improvement without changing the essential dog. Thus we end up with cycle after cycle of dogs bred for a handful of characteristics with scant attention paid to the dog as a whole.
by GSDBESTK9 on 09 March 2010 - 20:03
SG-Zeno de Renaudloup: SchH3, IPO3 KKL1... The total package
by darylehret on 09 March 2010 - 20:03
What about eye color? I guess it's all how you prioritize, because there's plenty of serious faults not mentioned in the standard, and some that are less consequential.
by Jenni78 on 09 March 2010 - 21:03
Ok, Charlie. You had me confused...my dog's not all that old, and the 6th, and 7th generations have Ex & co. occurring several times. I think 6th is the first though...I'd have to look to be sure. Gotcha.
People seem to only select for/against what's important to them, and even then, they take a buffet-style approach to it, and this is what I see causing the weakening of the breed. Slippery slope when we start being permissive.
People seem to only select for/against what's important to them, and even then, they take a buffet-style approach to it, and this is what I see causing the weakening of the breed. Slippery slope when we start being permissive.
by Silbersee on 09 March 2010 - 21:03
darylehret,
this is what I have been trying to say all along: It is all how you prioritize!! I also said that you should not loose the picture of the whole dog over picking at details, I think that is what the original poster meant here as well! Do not loose sight of the overall picture of a dog or better of the breed and what a GSD is supposed to be.
Eye color? I personally will never breed with or own a dog with light yellow eyes because I consider that a serious fault. But a medium eye color is not a problem!
Which faults are not described in the standard, please? You stated that there are plenty of them?
this is what I have been trying to say all along: It is all how you prioritize!! I also said that you should not loose the picture of the whole dog over picking at details, I think that is what the original poster meant here as well! Do not loose sight of the overall picture of a dog or better of the breed and what a GSD is supposed to be.
Eye color? I personally will never breed with or own a dog with light yellow eyes because I consider that a serious fault. But a medium eye color is not a problem!
Which faults are not described in the standard, please? You stated that there are plenty of them?
by darylehret on 10 March 2010 - 03:03
For example any number of genetic health conditions that the standard has no clear provisions against. Many are a far greater reason for exclusion of breeding than ears or eye color. I'm surprised at the huge investment many agencies make in attaining a suitable dog that can do the work and training it for work, that only in turn ends up with a rather short career due to inherited health conditions.
The majority of fault's I'd personally select against would probably be character or temperament related, and subjective to my personal opinion, but I see no reason to compromise health even for these. Appearance characteristics tend to be more superficial, and less relevant to work suitability, therefore lower on my list.
So, as priorities go, I'd say there's (1) things you won't compromise, (2) things you will if you must, and (3) things you'll take a chance with, depending on the risk vs. reward. Respectively demonstrated as (1) UU X UU, (2) dd X dd, and (3) Ud X Ud, if to use Prager's ears for an example.
The majority of fault's I'd personally select against would probably be character or temperament related, and subjective to my personal opinion, but I see no reason to compromise health even for these. Appearance characteristics tend to be more superficial, and less relevant to work suitability, therefore lower on my list.
So, as priorities go, I'd say there's (1) things you won't compromise, (2) things you will if you must, and (3) things you'll take a chance with, depending on the risk vs. reward. Respectively demonstrated as (1) UU X UU, (2) dd X dd, and (3) Ud X Ud, if to use Prager's ears for an example.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
