You don't train well behaved dogs, you breed them. A breeder has a good deal of control over genetics - if she/he does their homework, man controls the environment (for the most part) that a dog lives in, but without good genetics, no environment will make a dog social. JMO

 

Really?

Your dogs obey the commands sit, down and stay automatically? You don't need to train that first? Your dogs are housbroken from the beginning, they never jump at people and know that they can't beg on the table.

They are THAT well behaved from the day they were born because it's all in the genetics?

No need to train a dog at ALL because it's all in the genetics... wow! You really have wonder dogs.

You know, obedience is part of a well-behaved dog.

Lock a dog (as a puppy) into a cage for three years and just give him the food and water. No other contact whatsoever. Genetics might help a little bit but you will have to work hard to socialize him at that age and there'll probably always things that he'll be scared off because those first puppy weeks are CRUCIAL for a dog.

Humans are more intelligent as dogs and they have to go through socialization too. They can have the greatest genetics and still be antisocial if they are around the wrong people.

The some goes for dogs. In the hand of the wrong person you can turn a strong nerved dog into a weapon or a dog that is scared of every human being out or into a great companion.

It all depends on the person that raises that puppy.
But hey... I agree to disagree...

 

Never said all that Mrs. K - but they can walk on water.

IMO genetics have to be there - they trump training. Manfred Heyne picked herding dogs as young pups based on their natural instincts - and merely cultivated/honed the skills (genetics) that the dogs exhibited. They knew exactly how to bite and move sheep way before he "trained" them to do anything. I'm a little lost about throwing pups in a cage for years and seeing how they grow up. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. And if you are implying that no amount of genetics can over come those condictions perhaps you are right. And I would content that no amount of proper training could turn that around either.

 

Yes, I agree that genetics are important but they need training too. Genetics isn't everything and socialization isn't everything either. It takes both to have a great companion dog. One doesn't work without the other and I am pretty sure that we all can agree on that.
I guarantee you that there are people out there that could even make your dogs snap and/or break them to a point where they wouldn't trust any human being for a long time. You can do that to any dog, doesn't matter if strong or weak nerves and every dog handler knows that. Why do you think training and socialization is so **** important because you can shape and form dogs the way you want if you know how to do it, especially strong nerved dogs!

 

No one will ever have the chance to make my dogs snap. I'm not sure where you are coming from but it sounds to me like all you want is an argument. Well for once, I am not the one to point your biased opinions towards. You seem to know way too much about "breaking" dogs and how to make them snap. I can only hope you are speaking from speculation and not experience.

I'll take my dogs with their genetically innate skills and play with those that encourage and cultivate the dogs potential and stay away from militaristic dog "trainers" who impose their will over nature.

I learn from my dogs through observation and interaction. I rarely have to "make" my dogs do anything. They do "it" because they know how and are encouraged and rewarded to do so. Anything other than that is a crime against nature.

 

No, you just don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

I am trying to say that genes are NOT everything and that in the wrong hands a dog with good genes can still snap and that is why the right socialization is so important because you can take any dog and make him snap and it doesn't matter what kind of genes he has.

I am against brutal training too. I have the result of two dogs right here. One never got socialized properly and the other was abused and didn't get socialized properly and they came from the country into a busy town.

The abused dog was much harder to socialize but he recovers quickly and faster than I thought (good genes) the other dog owns the world is bold and outgoing but there are still situations where she has to get adjusted to because she's never experienced them but she is a quick and witty learner.

And all I am trying to say is that you need to socialize a dog properly, no matter if he has good and strong nerves or weak nerves. We owe it to the dogs to give them tools to go through every possible situation.

While good genes are important it's also socialization that plays a huge role. And I don't know what you have against socialization. Why are you so against it?

 

I have had dogs from many lines... working, show, american, german, dog pound who knows. They were good pets. That production has not been lost, does not require yet another line and is not any kind of special fashioned best I can tell.

 

Exactly. Specialization doesn't do the breed any favors.

 

As i undersood the history, after WWII the "war dogs" that were brought to america were bread to a different breed standard than those that remained in germany. the hip dysplasia problems became more pronounced due to these altered breed standards (namely bigger dogs with faster growth rates) while the German GSD's remained a medium sized dog with moderate growth rates. Then of course EARLY american breeders of GSD's who didnt quite understand the principles of temperament and drive were allowing the dogs to produce the unstable temperaments. this led to the difference between the american dogs (who eventually became the AKC showlines) and the eurpean GSD's wich is why the majority of police GSD's were euro imports. Today's american breeders have mainly adopted the euro bloodlines and standards.

or at least that's how i remember reading it in some book years ago on the history of the GSD

 

Starrynite

"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 agree with her. I also do not like that look.

 

I don't like it either but my understanding is that extreme rear angulation and/or croups has nothing to do with whether hips are good or bad.

 

^^ Correct. The angulation seen on many American line dogs has NOTHING to do with hips. It is caused by an elongated and wider angled stifle (the knee/thigh) area. Nothing in the hip assembly causes this and angulation has no bearing on whether a dog is more or less prone to HD.

 

past to present (click that)

To see a great comparison with photos how our GSD's have changed. Old fashioned???

 

past to present (click that)

To see a great comparison with photos how our GSD's have changed. Old fashioned???

Well, those are the show dogs.

Check out the German working line.

That is a HUGE difference to the show line, isn't it?
If you compare that to the pics from the 40's to the 70's than you can see that there isn't much change but I still wouldn't call them old' fashioned thoug...

 

Those dogs look terrible! They look very painful to me. My dog is tall not slanted and I love him that way!

 

I have absolutley nothing against socialization. My pups are born in the laundry room. I am in there from the first sign of labor until the last pup is out. From birth, each pup is handled. cuddled, rocked, sang to, touched several times a day. The first two weeks of their lives they spend a majority of time with mom and siblings in the whelping box plus individual time with human interaction. The following two week, they spend "exploring", learning how to interact in the pack, letting mom clean and nuzzle, being exposed to different sounds, textures on their feet, etc. The next two weeks they spend more time together with sibblings, less time with mom, and more time interacting with humans. They also slowly weaned from mom to food with human scent all over it. Week 6 - 8 they spend even less time with mom, become more independant, learn the pecking order in the pack, spend more time with humans, are introduced to crate training, are exposed to various challenges, etc.

I'm not sure how that makes me against socialization?

And to the post about the German shepherds coming here after WWII. The better breeders imported the best bloodlines from Germany. Sure a lot of junk came in but kennels such as Long Worth, San Miguel, Rocky Reach, and the dogs from the Cosalta lines were all outstanding examples of proper bloodlines. Some of the greatest names in the history of the German shepherd were used during this period in the US. Unfortunately, some were not used enough and we missed our chance of becoming the nation with the best German shepherds in the world.

And Ruby Tuesday touched on a very important concept - weather you are breeding working line, show, or companion dogs, a knowledgable breeder of any "type" of dog is striving for the same thing - making the German shepherd dog better. When Chris Wild and I can agree on something - anything is possible! (no offense Chris, just trying to make a point. Besides, even though we may not see eye to eye on many things, when it comes to the German shepherd dog, we only want the best.

 

I'm seeing more and more working lines with more angulation and rear for my taste, not as many as show lines of course but they exist. I also see a lot of very big working line dogs, both large and heavy. I know show lines are often criticized for their size but I'm not really sure where it comes from, maybe they look huge in pictures b/c of coat? My show line male is 70lbs, 24". If your show line is too large and/or too heavy it will most definitely come up in the critique. I don't see a big difference overall in size of show lines vs. working lines. Most of the ones I see are a good size, but I don't see more oversized show lines than working lines.

 

I believe socialization is good for all dogs, and think "genes vs. socialization" argument comes down mostly to two things in my layman's opinion:

1. What stimuli and how often the dog will portray a fearful state.

2. The time required by the dog to recover from the event.

Socialization will make a dog with good genes even more stable in day to day events, they will not react to things in as fearful a way, are more curious about their environment and accepting of challenges. If they DO get scared, they recover more quickly.
A well socialized dog with bad genes may have better recovery time than one with no socialization, but will still react to more situations, be more fearful, less outgoing, etc.

I have owned GSDs on various places in the spectrum, all were manageable but some needed more attention/effort.

In regards to different lines and their physical structure, I've personally experienced a big difference in stamina, speed and endurance with working vs. show lines. I've taken my dogs on 10+ mile horseback rides, the "working" dogs trotted along and seemed to have endless ability to do so, the "show" lines always had more difficulty. They could do it, but it was definitely harder for them. This is where the rubber hit the road for me, all the talk of angulation and balance made sense. German show line dogs were my first experience with GSDs, and as I pinpointed more what I wanted to do with my dogs, structurally sound working lines have been all I've had since.

This is my bone to pick with both American and German breeders (although I think "American show" shepherd breeders are the bigger offenders), is the structure. Of course, temperament and health are extremely important, but this area is where I've experienced the greatest loss of the Standard.

 

That's true and I agree with you. I've recently seen pretty big working dogs and was amazed that they actually got 'gekoered' because they are completely oversized and you don't need to measure their size to know that.

As for the slope and rear, I totally agree with you. I don't like that either.

 

Based on the pictures, yeah, REALLY.

If the kennel clubs don't have to follow the standard and can make freaks then why would anyone have to adhere to it? The governance led the way to the insanity.

The breed is so fragmented and has pretty much undergone every horrible thing Max predicted and cautioned against. No matter which camp you choose from, there will be a larger majority out there telling you you made the wrong choice and that they wish a pox on your breeder for not doing it their more correct way.

What a load. Who cares? Get what you want, and be happy with it. As for all the belly aching about the good of the breed and who holds the holy grail of the true gsd,
nobody cares to hear it. The best gsd is the one you love. The rest is of little matter. Whether you rescued, have a mix, found a stray or had to buy the boat that brought it here, did the training, paid for the titles before hand, or the only work you put into it is vacuuming hair off the couch, it really doesn't matter.

Just-

Enjoy This Day, with your dog!
Go outside and play!

 

Since the link is removed I can't see the site, let alone the pictures of the dogs.Are they that huge?lol.Are they mutated?lol.Anyone got pics?They seem like scary dogs .

 

Jessiewessie99, the dogs are large to very large, especially the males. Many people find Djibouti frightening, but that's b/c he's very large (29.5") & vigorous. Those who 'read' dogs well aren't fazed by him. In fact they usually love him.

Her dogs aren't for everyone, (whose are?), but those who have them are largely very happy with them. I've never felt any need to denigrate others choices in dogs & I'm both amused & baffled by the many that huff & puff about over sized GS. Frankly, the breed faces far more serious challenges than Djibouti standing several inches over standard.

 

I have absolutely NO expertise in the breeding field, so forgive my ignorance. But I remember GSD's being pretty standard looking with high backs and now all I seem to see at breeder sites for American GSD's is this tall front that slants down where the hindquarters are low to the ground. It looks unnatural and painful for the dogs in my opinion, and I am honestly just asking, why are people breeding GSD's so their hindquarters are so low to the ground?

 

I know show lines are often criticized for their size but I'm not really sure where it comes from, maybe they look huge in pictures b/c of coat? My show line male is 70lbs, 24". If your show line is too large and/or too heavy it will most definitely come up in the critique. I don't see a big difference overall in size of show lines vs. working lines. Most of the ones I see are a good size, but I don't see more oversized show lines than working lines.

When I went to my first SV show a few years ago I took Cody out to potty, we traveled very far so we had to take the dogs, and realized how tall he looked compared to the German Showline males. Cody is about 25.5'' but he is long thanks to his American half. Even Isa was mostly taller then most of the males but she is over standard at 25.4'' or at least close to that. I thought the dogs there looked great and not one dog was over standard as they measured them all. I'm thinking it's their body mass that makes them look big.

 

Measuring doesn't mean anything.

Do you know how many dogs in Germany are measured and gekoered even though they are clearly oversized?

You can train a dog to appear smaller than he actually is.

 

How do you train a dog to appear smaller than he is...maybe someone has been doing that with Rorie although I like small

 

The dog is taught to scrunch his shoulders down when placed under the measuring wicket. Easy way, is tacks or nails on the bottom of the measuring wicket. He gets poked with them enough times and he learns to scrunch whenever the measuring wicket is placed over him... instant "shorter" dog.

 

The thing that really bothers me about this thread is that someone early on in the thread said that people remember Strongheart and Rin-Tin-Tin, and that's the type of dog they want to buy. I don't understand this as an explanation because neither Strongheart nor the original Rin-Tin-Tin look anything at all like these dogs that are being advertised as "old-fashioned" German Shepherds.

Below are two photos. The one on the left is Strongheart, and one on the right is the original Rin-Tin-Tin. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see oversized, hulking behemoths of dogs when I look at Rinty and Strongheart.

As far as the breed standard goes ... people like to use the excuse that the modern breed standard was written much later and breeders *should* be breeding to what Max von Stephanitz envisioned. Unfortunately, it seems like those people generally have NO IDEA what Max von Stephanitz envisioned. Especially if they say that and breed oversized dogs. Because Captain Max was quite clear what he wanted -

Giants are never nimble. The ligaments soon give under the weight of the bones in times of hard work, especially in the forelegs on which they fall heavily at every step. Such dogs then use themselves up quickly when they are eager and full of ardor. They are, however, generally lazy and easy-going, and for that very reason are already unfit for service.

(...)

The breed type allows about 24" average height for dogs and bitches, with about 2" allowance either way. These dimensions are to be aimed at for all medium-sized service breeds as correct, whether the dogs are used for the flocks or for any other service. The service dog, like a good cavalry charger, must be indefatigable, enduring, and capable of maintaining a persevering, even quiet, but also a rapid gait, that is to say a trot, and also a gallop. Further, he must be mobile, capable of turning easily, and skillful in overcoming obstacles, whether by jumping or climbing. For this it is necessary to possess a specific size combined with strength.

(The German Shepherd Dog in Word and Picture, page 500.)

If you're breeding neither to the standard nor to what the breed's founder envisioned, exactly what are you breeding? Because IMHO it's not a German Shepherd.

 

The thing that really bothers me about this thread is that someone early on in the thread said that people remember Strongheart and Rin-Tin-Tin, and that's the type of dog they want to buy. I don't understand this as an explanation because neither Strongheart nor the original Rin-Tin-Tin look anything at all like these dogs that are being advertised as "old-fashioned" German Shepherds.

Below are two photos. The one on the left is Strongheart, and one on the right is the original Rin-Tin-Tin. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see oversized, hulking behemoths of dogs when I look at Rinty and Strongheart.

As far as the breed standard goes ... people like to use the excuse that the modern breed standard was written much later and breeders *should* be breeding to what Max von Stephanitz envisioned. Unfortunately, it seems like those people generally have NO IDEA what Max von Stephanitz envisioned. Especially if they say that and breed oversized dogs. Because Captain Max was quite clear what he wanted -

If you're breeding neither to the standard nor to what the breed's founder envisioned, exactly what are you breeding? Because IMHO it's not a German Shepherd.

As I stated earlier, I define "old-fashion" German shepherds as pre- Klodo v Boxberg. With this in mind, let's look at the historical trends in size of the German shepherd. From my historical notes - "As for size, Stephanitz himself chose, at the very least, 2 Siegers of at least 27 inches in height between 1910 and 1920 and uses Jung Tell of the Kriminalpolizei (Champion of Holland in 1913), another large dog, in a photograph as an example of a correct dog. The Boll lines, the Kriminalpolizei, the Secretainerie lines were all tall, large dogs, well known and well regarded in their time. In the early twenties, with dogs like Norse of the Kriminalpolizei (29 inches) being so heavily used, (180 litters were recorded from Norse alone) Stephanitz, who had choosen taller, larger dogs in the past, deliberately chose Klodo of Boxberg, a small (24 inches) but very correct dog as Sieger in 1925, knowing people would turn to Klodo to breed and that would inevitably bring the dogs back to the middle ground. Choosing the Klodo son von Haus Schutting in 1929 to follow merely soldified that modification. Stephanitz knew that he could depend upon people breeding heavily to whatever dog he chose as Sieger, and he was right, they did, but their is no doubt that historically, the early breeders of the German shepherd preferred dogs of larger size to those of smaller stature. Early American breeders were no different, preferring dogs of larger size over those of smaller stature.

To say the German shepherd dog was never a large dog is historically wrong.

 

I don't have a problem with massive dogs, if that's what people like (but I wonder why not get a Shiloh, since that's how they look and act?), but I'm still not seeing how this represents the "old fashioned" GSD. I will never own one because personally I like a very lean, well conditioned, athletic, active dog.

I'm not super picky on size and I've never seen judges being really picky in shows either. My dog has never been measured besides my unofficial attempt to satisfy my own curiosity. They are required to be measured for Koer, but not every judge will measure during a show, and even if they do they do not have to throw the dog out because it's half an inch over or under. I have seen/heard many a judge comment on size in general- not specifically height, but a dog that is just plain massive and/or too heavy or not in correct condition. My bitch is a UKC champion with legs towards her Grand (meaning she has beaten other champions multiple times) and she's about half an inch under the standard height. In my experience showing in three different venues, the judge is looking at the overall size, and more importantly the condition of the dog. The dog must be lean and physically fit. Most dogs I see being marketed as the oversized gentle giants are simply just too heavy and not in correct condition.

 

I recently went to a dog show and I saw a very small female GSD and I kid you not I thought she was a puppy 6-7 months old. She was 2 1/2! She was so small I could not believe it. My GSD, my friends GSD and my Co Workers GSD are all about the same size and around the same weight. Mine is 85-88 pounds, friend's is 95 pounds and my co worker's female is about 80 pounds. They are all very tall, not fat at all. No slanted legs and all of them are very athletic. Very good looking dogs in my opinion

 

This is my bitch, she is six years old, weighs 50 lbs and is lean and athletic. She actually has a deeper, more developed chest than my male who is 25lbs heavier (show line, still maturing). If you look at her from the front, her chest is lower and if you look at her from the top, her chest is wider. She has very little angulation relative to today's show fads, but moves very balanced, no looseness, firm back. I was at a dog show this weekend showing my male and since I had her along, I entered her as well.

I have no problem with the occasional dog having a much larger frame, or breeding an oversized dog because it carries even more important characteristics (temperament, drives, health, etc), but to me there's a difference between a dog with an oversized frame and a dog that is simply overweight and not in athletic condition.