[Chris Wild]

With regard to oversized breeding, I think there is a definite difference between what different people are talking about with regard to oversized.

The majority of the criticism toward oversized breeding, as near as I can tell, are the breeders who are breeding giant GSDs. Dogs several inches over standard and well over 100lbs, who are often also quite a bit overweight judging by photos on websites, so as to allow for them to accurately be described as even bigger. And there are plenty of those such breeders out there. When getting to that size range, working ability and health most certainly can be compromised, though as much so by breeding focus (or lack thereof) than size itself. That many of these giants are carrying an extra 20-30lbs so they can be marketed as even bigger sure doesn't help matters any. But this is a very different situation than those who like bigger dogs in the sense of upper end of the standard or slightly oversized. This has been said many times in the thread, but it appears some people seem to think they're being lumped into the same group.

The biggest concern I, and probably many others, have with this sort of breeding is that when the main goal is one specific trait.. be it oversized, undersized, coat type, fad colors or anything else... what is lost in the process? Are more important things like temperament and health sacrificed? You bet often they are. This is certainly not always the case, but it is in many instances. Someone breeding for giants, marketing their pups toward people who want giants, may very well choose the 30" 140# beast with health and temperament issues over the middle standard sized dog with excellent health and temperament, because that is the focus of their breeding program. Not to say they may not be able to find a giant dog with excellent health and temperament, no doubt they could if they looked hard enough. But will they, especially if they have a giant nervebag with working plumbing in the back yard. Certainly this is not true of all of them, but it is true of enough that it makes people very leery when they encounter breeders pushing any one specific trait.

Then there is the issue of a shallow gene pool, which means that even if a breeder is trying to keep balance in other areas while producing a huge dog, can make it extremely difficult to do so. The majority of GSDs running around do fall within the standard with regard to things like size and color. Seeking out the genetics of dogs who do not severely limits the options available, perhaps forcing a breeder to choose between using a dog who doesn't fit their goals of size to maintain more important things like health and temperament and thus going against their stated goals and target customer base, or keeping with their stated goals and customer base and perhaps sacrificing more important things along the way. That is the concern, that the breeder will choose poorly.

This concern is magnified by the marketing. When someone markets their dogs talking first about size and putting emphasis there over all other things, it leaves the impression that is where they put emphasis when it comes to breeding decisions as well. And the more singular and specific traits they emphasize, especially combined with a much smaller gene pool in which to find those traits, can lead to a complete loss of balance in the breeding program and dogs.

Personally myself, I like a larger dog. I prefer dogs toward the upper end of the standard. A bit oversized wouldn't be a huge issue, but a giant is another matter and would be completely out of the question. I would not want one of those. At 26" and 95lbs I prefer Kaiser's size over Wulf's 25" and 85lbs, and certainly over a 24" 75lb male. Though I guess I have a double standard there because with females I prefer Della's 23" 65lbs over Raven's 24" 78lbs. But really, size is secondary. Health, temperament, nerve and working ability come first. We have a litter we bred where despite both parents being well within standard, most every dog in the litter is maturing out to be top end of the standard or a little bit over. I'm not pleased with that as I'd rather they be a bit smaller (I'd rather they had better pigment too) and the large size wasn't something we wanted. But I'm not overly displeased with it either because in terms of more important things we got pretty much exactly what we wanted. Size alone wouldn't deter me from doing the same or similar breeding. I'd just know better what to expect and warn new owners about with regard to size. Though ideally I will find a way to get similar results with regards to the important things, in a slightly smaller package next time around. Ultimately though, within reason, what sized package that comes in is of no more concern than what color it comes in. I have my preferred color too, yet neither of my girls even come close. Instead I have to settle for gazing at Wulfie from afar and cuddling him on the couch.

As far as the "old fashioned" claim, that one drives me nuts too and I just do not see any validation for it. Of course some of the GSDs of olden days were oversized, but it was not the overwhelming majority. Though I don't think that aside from the possible occasional mutant there were ever 30" 140# dogs running around herding sheep and serving police and military in late 19th and early 20th century Germany. Early on there were also dogs of all colors including white, blue, liver, brindle, piebald and merle, floppy earned dogs and perky eared dogs, short coats and long coats and curly coats and just about every other physical trait imaginable. Temperament was set first, then physical traits were weeded out to get the desired look of the breed as well as the size and structure deemed most widely utilitarian, which to me is a correct set of priorities. Now, it seems some are going backwards, focusing too much on looks and certainly not nearly enough on temperament.

But as far as "old fashioned" goes, there is a huge difference between it being common in some lines and it being the true "old fashioned" dog. The problem with the "old fashioned" marketing is that it says to people that these oversized (and very often long coated) dogs are the only true GSDs of old. That all GSDs back in the day were like this and that smaller, standard sized (and even standard coated) dogs are some new fangled idea that is not true to the breed's history. That is completely incorrect. There were just as many smaller dogs in the old days as big ones, with most actually falling in the middle. With the defense I've seen for the "old fashioned" marketing saying that it isn't a lie because there were big dogs back then, the same would hold true for anything else. Someone breeding undersized dogs or standard sized dogs would be no less accurate to describe their dogs as "old fashioned". Heck, with that line of thinking, if all it takes is being able to point back to a few examples of such in the early days of the breed to justify it, someone breeding merle flop eared curly coated dogs might get away with marketing their dogs as "old fashioned". I don't dispute that there have always been big dogs in the breed. I don't even dispute that for some specific forms of service a larger dog (though not a giant) may be more useful. I dispute the implication with the "old fashioned" marketing that this was the norm, and universally seen and desired amongst the old dogs and smaller dogs are some new craze.