Size Development Of The GSD - Page 7

I do not agree that it should be correct proportions v simply height. The breed standard is designed for the correct proportions in relation to a range of height levels (size). If the breeders were to breed for the breed standard then the problem of size would be more controllable. The fact is that sometimes a mating has to take place whereby one dog albeit over/under size has something to benefit the breed as a whole. What benefits should be traded off in using these type of dogs? Like all breeding it comes down to an educated guess, there is no precise formula guaranteed to work every time. To promote the use of over/under sized animals they need to be shown so that they can be assessed against their peers. The shows were something that v Stephenitz admitted was needed in the assessment for the improvement of the breed.

The breed has been inbred to the point that many oversized dogs appear in every pedigrees and, in my opinion, there is no fast track to bring size down. Even 5 years may not be long enough depending on how much the breeders try to achieve this.

I do not agree think that the comment "It's still going to be subjective in the ring as there comes a point where the correct size dog just doesn't measure up to the qualities of the larger dog and all faults considered the ones in the smaller dog are still more than the larger dog leaving the larger dog in the best position". Why doesn’t the correct size dog measure up to the larger dog and why should the faults in the correct size dog be greater than the larger dog?

Mackenzie

OK, We have one vote for height is all that matters. From another perspective we have height as one component of an overall dog. To illustrate the example of a large dog in the ring, let's say we have a show. In the ring are two dogs to simplify the example. One dog is an excellent specimen, excellent anatomy and his character shines through. His hips and elbows are 'a' normal and he's IPO3. The stick comes out and he's 66cm. Too big for the standard. His up and back are straight, his fast lap shows excellent enthusiastic movement.

Next up for the stand is an IPO1 dog well within the standard. He lacks masculinity, one ear is loose, he's steep in the front and overangulated in the rear and quite cow hocked. If his head was on the other end he would be high at the withers, He's east/west with low pasterns. Hips and elbows are 'a'2/'a'3. He measures a clean 64.5. He falls on his front what little he can gait on the fast lap.

Which dog gets called out in front? Is the breed so unflawed that height is the only thing we are left to criticize? Do we put the obviously lesser specimen in front as there is absolutely no comparison? Do we say the sum of the faults in the correct size dog is more of a detraction than the one fault of the larger dog and put the larger dog in front? Rules are gonna say put the crippled looking dog in front. If there is no judges discretion and the lesser dog is put up, will anyone show a bigger dog to get the information needed to accumulate the data going forward?

In the examples quoted by Dog1 a judge would not place a dog with so many faults above a slightly larger dog of a much higher quality. The comparison is nowhere near like for like. If, however, the dogs are of equal quality apart from size then the smaller dog should be placed over the larger dog.

As we are talking about a show then if any dog does not meet the qualities of deserving a high place then the judge does have the right to give a lower grade to the dog i.e. instead of giving VA or V grades then give say, SG or G. If as in the UK the awards at a show are Red Cards for first, Blue for second and so on then give the appropriate colour card according to merit. There is a problem with the card system in that in a class of only one dog then that dog gets a red card for first place based not on merit but because there is no other dog to compare him/her against. When I have judged the breed I have withheld cards when I felt it necessary. Not popular but my conscience has been clear. The judge is there to promote the good animals and not to reward the dogs because they are there with nothing to offer the breed.

Mackenzie

Judge dogs against the standard and not against each other, doesn't matter how many are in the ring.

the one dog gets the red card (or blue ribbon in the U.S) because most judges don't have the courage (I was going to say balls but don't know if that is allowed here) to judge against the standard.

About 2 months a go, a judge pulled out the wicket to measure the miniature poodles in her ring at a show in Orlando Fl. Half the people in the ring took off their arm bands and walked out before they could be measured, the other half were DQ by the judge who is most likely looking for a job now because she had the balls to do her job.

Oversize/undersize prevents a working breed from doing it's intended job. It is much more than cosmetic. The standard is the standard, the ideal size is very clearly defined and is one of the few characteristic that are absolute and not left to interpretation. When a working dog loses it's athleticism, it is worthless for anything other than an couch ornament. How many of these over sized, over done Va dogs could scale a 6 foot wall or tend a herd of sheep 24/7?

What else is more vital to the performance of any working breed than the correct size to get the job done?

to the poodle judge.

Dog1, in the AKC ring neither of your 2 dogs would be/should be awarded a ribbon.

I don't believe this all crop.Cutaway please tell me and all readers where and when this event took place,otherwise i don't believe you.I went to many shows and BST judge by Mr.Quoll and i never seen anything like this .He was chosen in Germany the breed warden for reason.He is one of most knowledgable and honest judges in Germany.Just another attempt to smear someone image by some stupid accusation.Please deliver all the answers before we can even consider this as a real deal,if you don't have any please remove this thread.

Mackenzie,

Thank you for proving my point. There's more to the dog than just height. This is what the SV recognizes too and is developing a system where the dogs are not automatically removed, they are factored in. The size didn't get where it is in one generation. I don't think the solution is to try to fix it in one generation either. There are incentives in place to encourage size within the standard while still allowing dogs on or slightly over to still contribute.

Going back to the example. In a regular class there would hopefully be more dogs. In a theoretical class of 13 where 3 correct size dogs of similar quality as the large dog in this example were in the ring and the remaining were obviously of lesser quality but correct size. The larger dog would be placed 4th, at the back of his quality level even if he was a little better than the dog in front of him overall. That's where the balance is. It's not 100% height. There is some judges discretion.