Chris-
I'm sorry, but that's not the story I've been told. Yes, Strongheart was a police dog, but Rinty was trained as a war dog while he was still in Germany with Duncan.

Maybe I've heard wrong, but that is how I know it to be.

 

Here Rin Tin Tin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know wikipedia is not the best source but what is on there is actually true.

 

"SHE", thank you.

 

From Rin Tin Tin's own website:

"Duncan worked with the dogs training them to perform as he had seen the German war dogs perform during the war."

The dogs there are still called "pups", so I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean. To me, a 1 year old is still a "pup", so the level of actual training can be questioned.

 

From Rin Tin Tin's own website:

"Duncan worked with the dogs training them to perform as he had seen the German war dogs perform during the war."

Performing behaviors similar to war dogs for a movie does not in any way, shape or form make a dog a war dog. As anyone who works dogs doing protection or rescue or search work or herding or anything else knows, there is a world of difference between being trained to do it and actually doing it in the real world. And likewise, there is a world of difference between being trained to perform behaviors that look like it, and actually being trained for it much less doing it for real.

A dog working with constant commands, direction and feedback from an off camera handler to appear to be rescuing someone from a burning building is not even remotely the same as a dog making the choice of his own violition to rescue someone from a burning building and then pulling it off on his own. Film gives the impression of canine superheros with genius IQs, but it is only an impression.

Sadly for the dogs, while everyone seems to realize actors are just acting and Stallone really isn't Rambo and Daniel Craig isn't really a superspy and Daniel Radcliffe isn't really a teenage wizard, they seem to often think that animal actors are for real. Hence all the dog breed fads with each new Disney movie.

 

Rin Tin Tin was found in a bombed out kennel in Lorraine, France at the end of 1918. His birthdate is listed as September 10, 1918 though that probably isn't entirely accurate, and rather is based on his estimated age (6-8wks old) at the time he was found by Duncan. The war essentially ended with the armistace in November 1918, though the treaty of Versailles wasn't signed until the following year.

So most certainly not a war dog.

And also, Rinty was not a "she".

 

No, I am a she.

 

I was saying I agree with ATravis and felt she was correct when she said:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the GSD was designed to be an ALL PURPOSE dog. Being a family pet is a PURPOSE.

Keep in mind that K9, protection, and SAR are not the ONLY jobs a GSD can do. Therapy work, assistance dogs, and guides are also VERY important working venues. A dog does not have to have fight and prey drive out his *** to be a good working dog".

 

I do breed what I honest to God think the German shepherd dog should be. I am guided by the vision of Max and not not a Standard written by a bunch of people that want to influence the breed to their preference. It just so happens to be dogs that JOhn Q Public love. Are they a hit with the show crowd - hail no. Do they perform in the sport of SchH - no and never will. Do I think they represent what a German shepherd was developed to be - yes. Have I bettered the bred - not if I am judged by the Standard. But for concentrating on health, temperament, and structure I honest to God think I have.

 

I realize what's done in the films is dramatization, thank you. I do have SOME commonsense.

Forgive me for hearing the story differently than you

 

I realize what's done in the films is dramatization, thank you. I do have SOME commonsense.

Forgive me for hearing the story differently than you

I've no doubt you do and didn't mean to imply otherwise. But for many people that is not true.

I was pointing out that the concern over "fads", and you're statement that those dogs weren't fads but true GSDs which is what started the whole RinTinTin/Strongheart tangent in the first place, is a very real and problematic issue. Because many, many people, especially those new to dogs or new to a particular breed do not see the difference. They think Collies are all Lassie and Saints are all Beethovan and GSDs are all Rintys and Stronghearts and Jerry Lees.

 

If the Standard is so dang important and powerful, why in hades are we in the dam mess we are today? If that is what the Standard produces - something is bad wrong.

It's hard to say the breeder is only a good if they breed to the Standard and then say the Standard doesn't matter when it comes to such and such for the German shepherd. I have seen many dogs in AKC events that were way bigger than standard. For example, a 27" bitch ended up just over 23" and placed very highly.

A balanced German shepherd can come in many different sizes and not always fall within the Standard. So if a breeder chooses to call their German shepherds "old-fashion" because at some point in the history of the dog, there were many German shepherds that were over the standard, why discard the breeder and the dogs? The breeder never says that her dogs are bred to the standard so the breeder is not lying but actually being truthful. But because the truth does not conform to the Standard - the dogs and breeder are a bad representation of the breed.

 

If the Standard is so dang important and powerful, why in hades are we in the dam mess we are today?

Good question. I show my dogs in three venues, do Schutzhund and all manor of other training and titling and to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever even read the German Shepherd standard. It doesn't seem to hold us back. If you are so against the standards then just don't worry about it. Form follows function. If the dogs are consistently doing the jobs the breed was designed to do, the structure and temperament will follow.

 

The reason we are in this mess today is because people started breeding for beauty and there are a lot of people out there that pay thousands of dollars and euros for these dogs.

Every breed that is bred for beauty is going downhill. Not only the Shepherd and as long as there are shows like the Westminster Kennel show it will never stop.

 

True but they bred to the Standard and to what would win shows at the expense of health, temperament, and structure.

So which is worst - a "Standard dog" with poor health, and poor temperament or a dog that is "not to the Standard" and healthy, and with outstanding temperament? I know which one represents the breed better.

 

I like bigger GSD's but that is my preference. I dont like when their back legs look broken, bending. That is also my preference

 

Yes, sorry about that.

And I do agree. But what they were in the film, and what they were in real life, had a very strong correlation.

Even if they weren't war dogs, and weren't taking people out on the streets, they were still very stable, very admirable dogs. They had to be, considering the amount of exposure they got. I suppose my point was, these dogs, who they were in REAL life, were still the epitome of what the breed should be. Smart, trainable, dependable, rock solid temperament.

 

And there are still Shepherds like that out there that fall into the standard size and weight. Not all of them are so called "Wesenskrueppel" and "Scherenschleifer" (thats how weak and low nerved dogs are called in Germany).

There are dogs that are die-hard working dogs, healthy hips, strong nerves and still live with the family and let the kids ride on them. You can take these dogs anywhere. I can even take my abused Yukon into the city and expose him to a busy mall, take him to festivals, elevators, buses, train stations and and and.

The key is socialization and there is a huge difference betwen dogs that have weak nerves and dogs that are not socialized at all.

I've come to realize that many dogs lack socialzation because they are mainly kept in the backyard and housing area or taken from the kennel to the dog club.
No wonder that these dogs collapse when they are exposed to streets, malls and lots of people.

 

I disagree that it is mainly socialization, or a lack thereof. I think more often than not it is genetically weak nerves, and this is used as an excuse for faulty temperament. I have just known way too many dogs who had little to no socialization yet were as confident, outgoing and stable as could be. And way too many dogs who were socialized out the wazoo and never had a bad experience in their lives that are still skittish, fearful and nervy.

Genetics always trumps environment. And while enviroment and socialization can play a role, it is a smaller one than many people think. And even how much of an influence environment can have is also governed in large part by genetics.

 

My female is like that. She had no socialization at all but she OWNS the world LOL.

However, a trained eye can tell (after a while) if the dog has weak nerves or isn't socialized at all and I can see it especially here on post that some dogs have no manners at all, not socialized and are only taken out to pee and poop and I guarantee you that even strong nerved dogs can be jumpy in certain situations just because they've never been exposed to it before.
They are not machines and don't know everything from the start, some things you have to teach them. And thats the difference between weak and strong nerved dogs. The weak nerved dogs will not learn it in the first place.

 

"There are dogs that are die-hard working dogs, healthy hips, strong nerves and still live with the family and let the kids ride on them. You can take these dogs anywhere. I can even take my abused Yukon into the city and expose him to a busy mall, take him to festivals, elevators, buses, train stations and and and."

Of course this is true. My Mulder is like this. He's not trained in protection, but if I were truly in danger, I have little doubt in my mind that he would do everything within his power to keep me safe. I've seen him turn "on", and its nothing I would want to be on the receiving end of. I sleep very well at night

But at the same time, I take him with me anywhere I'm aloud. Stores, outdoor events, you name it. He LOVES children, he likes meeting new people, he's fine with my cats, and is best buddies with my foster dog (or any dog that will tolerate him, really). He's just about as stable as stable gets.


But how many are like this? How common is it? Yes, proper socialization is important, but people shouldn't have to walk on eggshells to make sure the dog turns out ok.

Case in point- how many become dog reactive after being attacked by another dog?

Mulder has been attack THREE times, and still has a scar on his face from one of them. Yet I can still take him to the local dog park, and he gets along perfectly with everyone there.

YES, I worked hard to keep up his socialization, but there MUST be a genetic base. My point is, how many have this? Why don't MORE have this?

 

Chris, I agree with you. Now don't faint and yes I said it! roflmao

 

Chris, I agree with you. Now don't faint and yes I said it! roflmao

oke:
Oh Lordy, what is the world coming to!? Because my next statement is....



I absolutely agree with Doc here:

Health, temperament, and structure is the trinity. How that looks is anyone's guess.

These are indeed the keys.

All 3 must be balanced between each other. Losing sight of that, forgoing one or two in favor of focusing solely on another is the downfall of the breed, and the biggest reason the breed is in the state it is today.

A dog with poor temperament is a blight on the breed and of no use to anyone, and in many cases a dangerous liability. A dog with poor health is a heartbreaker. A dog with structure that impeeds his ability to do what his owner wants and what his breed should be able to do, or even to enjoy normal life as a dog going for walks and chasing a ball, is a tragedy. This doesn't mean those dogs don't deserve love and good homes, but they certainly are not good representatives of the breed.

Furthermore, each must be balanced in its own right. It's not just a focus on one or two aspects over others that causes problems, but very differing opinions of what constitutes correct and balanced within each category. Here is where individual interpretation has taken the breed all over the place because everyone has their own idea of what constitutes correct temperament or structure or even health.

Temperament must be balanced. No secret I'm a "working dog" person. But to me, a GSD who can work but can't be a companion is as incorrect for this breed as one who can be a companion but cannot work. The GSD must be able to do both. Of course, how one defines work of course is very open to interpretation.

Structure must be balanced, and here I feel that while the dog should look like a GSD and be pleasing to the eye, structure should never, ever impeed function. (Though personally, I don't find the dogs where it does to be pleasing to the eye or very GSD looking... but obviously some do.) When what "wins" is a structure that severely reduces speed, agility, stamina and structural integrity, something is very very wrong.

Even what constitutes correct health is somewhat open to interpretation. I think we all feel we have a really good idea of what makes a "healthy" dog and what doesn't, but sometimes I wonder.

I have a 10.5yo dog at home with hips graded at a year old as Moderate HD by OFA. And while the hips shown on the x-rays aren't the worst I've seen, they're pretty ugly. Yet at 10.5 she's as crazy, active and vibrant as ever and has no problem running and jumping and chasing balls, with an energy level that rivals that of our 5mo puppies.

Is she healthy? Or not? The official ruling of course would be NO! She has moderate HD! But it's never bothered her, she's never had any symptoms, despite it she's more active and spry than a lot of dogs half her age. And we've never done anything extreme to affect that. She's had a good diet, good medical care, good exercise, has been kept fit and trim.. but nothing there out of the ordinary or geared toward dealing with her HD. Only thing we've done differently than with any other dog is adding joint supplements to her diet. That's it.

Would I breed her? No, of course not. But I might be prone to arguing with anyone who said she isn't healthy based soley on her x-rays... and I know she'd argue with them.

 

Here's a thought/fact for the enthusiasts of any breed......"The Standard" is not only regarding structure, or how "pretty" a dog should be...as many seem to express. It is about "character, temperament & usefulness"...it is SUPPOSED to be the "breeding guideline/blue print" to follow. It is SUPPOSED to be the "description" of the breed, and it's purpose. You can "interpret" it anyway you choose, you can **** the judges, breeders, sport enthusiasts & handlers...all you want.....bottom line is...breeding for any extreme ..from either... "form TO function" is incorrect.
None of us breed the "perfect" dogs...there is no such thing.
But this breed is SUPPOSED to be strong nerved, have working drives, physically & mentally sound and be of correct size. This is a compliant & versatile breed.....it's supposed to be able to conform to the tasks & duties required.
Titles do not make the dog......but a good dog, can make the title....whatever the "title" may be.
JMO

 

I believe that it is not the "reaction" from the dogs to new experiences or circumstances..that is most important.....it is "how the dog recovers" from them....
I believe that is where "genetics" is most apparent....be it "weak or strong".
again...JMO

 

Yes, that is what I believe to but it is hard to put it into a different language.

Anyhow, I think you get what I am trying to say, right?

 

Very well stated Chris. If we both agree with each other, people may start to talk about us ... LOL.

I'm well aware of what the Standard is suppose to do and be, but it has been bastardized to the point that the German shepherd is no longer the dog Max created.

 

Structure must be balanced, and here I feel that while the dog should look like a GSD and be pleasing to the eye, structure should never, ever impeed function. (Though personally, I don't find the dogs where it does to be pleasing to the eye or very GSD looking... but obviously some do.) When what "wins" is a structure that severely reduces speed, agility, stamina and structural integrity, something is very very wrong.

That I totally agree with.

 

Agree...and Max did not intend this breed to be anything other than what he created.....including the idea, that breeding for the sole purpose of producing "pets" is acceptable.....
The breeding world will always be filled with......"do as I say...not as I do."
Every breeder believes they are doing justice and what they "produce" is best......it's our self esteem button. We all have types we deem "correct", and criticize those that beg to differ.
The (complete) standard is the "blue print" of the breed......either choose to follow it.(to your best ability)...or choose not......ultimately....the choice is yours.
Robin

 

If the Standard is the blueprint, then there are a lot of breeders that can not read a blueprint! And today's Standard is not the one drafted by MvS.

At my age, I have no need to stroke my ego. Hopefully I am breeding German shepherds that represent the Golden age of German shepherds in this country.

 

Amen, Doc.

 

If we agree that genetics provides the raw material of a dogs temperament, we still have the problem of deciding WHICH puppy has the great genetic material so we can ignore their socialization and just tie them in the backyard for 2 years and then take them downtown and into crowds and have them not freak out.

How would we know?

Also, how many puppies (as a %) do you think would turn out to be solid temperamented dogs without normal socilaization? 10%, 1%, more or less?

I think some folks probably ought to look at the research of puppy socialization.

 

Thank you.

You can screw an even strong nerved dog up if he got brought up the wrong way.

Like I said before, they are not machines, they are living creatures and socialization is a big part of bringing up a puppy. Especially when they go through the fear phase.

 

I don't know much about this subject, but I have seen the pics of GSD's with their hindquarters so low it makes me cringe and think "ouch". From what I have heard and read that is not originally the breed standard and probably accounts for so many hip problems. I met a guy at the dog park who said he paid $2,500 for his GSD and spent three times that in the first year of his life on vet bills. Again, I am NO expert but that is so sad! Why not keep the breed how they were originally and not for some sort of new show standard which is my understanding of it?