by BlackMalinois on 29 December 2015 - 23:12
For all the GSD experts here watch good this how a healthy GSD has to look like
especialy the back !!!!!!!!! 1957
by Bavarian Wagon on 30 December 2015 - 15:12
Can you provide the health reports on the dogs in that video? Just want to have proof that all those dogs were healthy and although they have zero drive, the worst training I've ever seen, and would probably be run by most trainers/helpers today, we should at least have some information on their amazing health that you're claiming.
Or are you a super skilled vet that can watch a video and guarantee the dogs are health?
by BlackMalinois on 30 December 2015 - 15:12
I,m talking about the anatomy looks much better than most of the GSD
I see here on this forum, Stay in your own GSD world with all the breeders
who have no idea what they are breeding and talking about anatomy, What kind of health problems do we see today that gives me...............
a big big laugh on my face but not realy it is very sad actually.
by Bavarian Wagon on 30 December 2015 - 16:12
"Anatomy looks better" is a hugely subjective statement. To you...it looks better. To others...who knows?
So you don't have any proof those dogs are any healthier than today's dogs? You just like how they look? Makes your original statement very misleading and incorrect.
I don't know what kind of "crap GSD" you see on this forum. The ones I have, the ones I work, and the ones I'd consider owning are all very healthy and proven producers of healthy dogs. Not just orthopedic health, but also haven't had any issues with allergies or any of the other usual problems that dogs have in general. On top of that...anatomy has very little to do with health. A dog can be anatomically incorrect and still be very healthy without any joint or back issues. Anatomy can affect working ability and locomotion, but joints, bones, muscles can still be in perfect working order even if they don't "look right."
I know you're against GSD, but if you're going to make negative statements, you should provide factual, objective, and hopefully scientific back up to what it is you're basing your opinion on. Not just spewing negative commentary which may lead others to believe something for false reasons.
by hntrjmpr434 on 30 December 2015 - 17:12
Some horrible decoy work, and those grips were horrendous.
by joanro on 30 December 2015 - 17:12
But there had to be cave man before the rocket scientist
If the cave man didn't make tools that today would useless in war, we would not have the means to anhilate cultures today. So....there had to be a starting place for sch, both decoys and dogs.
by Bavarian Wagon on 30 December 2015 - 17:12
Those dogs are clearly not driven to bite or protect. There is (making assumptions here) probably an extremely high level of obedience causing them to think that being obedient is way more important than protecting. You can see this with the clip of the dogs lined up in a line in a down while a helper is making threats and also of how quickly the dog disengages and retreats when an out command is given. The dogs are clearly more worried about a correction from the handler/trainer than they are about any threat from the helper.
by joanro on 30 December 2015 - 18:12
I was commenting on; "Some horrible decoy work, and those grips were horrendous."
Breeding is all about selection...goals determine selection.
by Hundmutter on 31 December 2015 - 08:12
both BW and Joan's posts.
by duke1965 on 31 December 2015 - 08:12
I have books/magazines from the early 1900 whith the first ring trails in belgiums and some of the top malinois than died at age 3 or 4 for unknown reasons
so we really need to wonder how much better or worst we really are, if we look at all the testing we can do now, are there more problems or are we just able to see more problems, and what is influence of todays crap dog food, vaccinations, flea and worm treatments poison we put in our dogs and so on
everybody have a happy and healthy new year