German Shepherds Forum banner

41 - 60 of 98 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,135 Posts
Corrected above. Still not in standard and you know it and what I meant; love the dog you have.
well no...
slightly smaller than 51# could very well be 49# which is within standard.
and no worries, don’t need anyone to tell me to love my 55# boy ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
49# and slightly smaller is just as much standard as 88# and slightly heavier.
I hate you're making this a discussion but NO IT'S NOT.

Breed standard weight (when it's mentioned) is 60-70 lbs for bitches and 75-88 pounds for males. 48 lb and slightly smaller is far below breed standard for either sex and if you want to get technical, should not be bred and is not desirable for the breed standard.

88 pounds and slightly heavier is within the breed standard and slightly heavier would be just that, slightly higher.

So no, "49# and slightly smaller is not just as much standard as 88# and slightly heavier".
-Not even close. Maybe as desirable for some not as much for breed standard. And you're talking to someone not as tightly concerned about breed standard as many.

I guess it depends on the standard you choose to quote as well. American doesn't list weight standard, Canadian does. If pretending you have a German dog suits your argument better, have at it, it's mute to me; love the dog you have.:p

I hope you'd pet Rogan if you met him; Dog weight should not be divisive.

30 pound males rule ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,387 Posts
First of all, most people on this forum adhere to this written standard:


Secondly, the weights and heights listed are guidelines for the ideal dog. Slightly above or below is a fault but not a disqualification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
I hate you're making this a discussion but NO IT'S NOT.

Breed standard weight (when it's mentioned) is 60-70 lbs for bitches and 75-88 pounds for males. 48 lb and slightly smaller is far below breed standard for either sex and if you want to get technical, should not be bred and is not desirable for the breed standard.

88 pounds and slightly heavier is within the breed standard and slightly heavier would be just that, slightly higher.

So no, "49# and slightly smaller is not just as much standard as 88# and slightly heavier".
-Not even close. Maybe as desirable for some not as much for breed standard. And you're talking to someone not as tightly concerned about breed standard as many.
Anyone with working lines has dogs bred to the sv/fci standard, or not to one at all. Working lines aren’t bred to CKC/AKC standards. There is a reason you see them with German ratings way more than AKC champions. As for actual dog size, there is two camps here. One that values oversized dogs, and one that doesn’t have a preference as long as they can work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
A very brisk consistent trot that leaves the dog gassed after an hour. He actually behaves afterwards as if endorphins have been released and is very active. It takes about one hour to circle six soccer fields 14 times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
The standard is all about the SV and show line dogs and has nothing to do with working ability. That is one reason the breed has declined.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
The ideal dog is the dog that can perform to its expectations with the most ability. Time and time again, great working GSDs were cast aside from breeding because of minor physical “faults” which progressively increased to the point of having essentially two separate breeds of the working lines and the high lines. To me, that says it all when it comes to overvaluing physical trait and undervaluing working traits. The breed founder was guilty of this breeding practice and it became progressively worse with the Martin brothers taking over the breed and the US and other countries buying into their propaganda. Would you rather have a super undersized or oversized dog or a dog that is ideal in the SV’s opinion of structure that is mediocre or weak?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,387 Posts
It is to my understanding that the height and weight requirements of the breed standard were derived from the real working dog world as to what size was the most ideal to perform the best in overall work venues. It is not an arbitrary number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuvShepherds

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
so we’re just disregarding FCI?
People are free to quote whatever standard they feel is appropriate even those
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL VALID STANDARD: 11.08.2010

but even there, 49# and slightly smaller are at the extreme end of that particular breed standard (48.5 lbs) and further,
"The colour of the eyes should be as dark as possible. Light, piercing eyes are undesirable since they impair the dog’s impression"

and
"The nose must be black."

You sure you want to go there? Half our dogs are out ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Anyone with working lines has dogs bred to the sv/fci standard, or not to one at all. Working lines aren’t bred to CKC/AKC standards. There is a reason you see them with German ratings way more than AKC champions. As for actual dog size, there is two camps here. One that values oversized dogs, and one that doesn’t have a preference as long as they can work.
Or one that values oversized dogs, as long as they can work....:unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
It is to my understanding that the height and weight requirements of the breed standard were derived from the real working dog world as to what size was the most ideal to perform the best in overall work venues. It is not an arbitrary number.
So for about 2% of GSD owners that work their dogs in a traditional manner?
If I had sheep, I'd have a 40 pound Border Collie or a 60 pound GSD .... but I don't.

I'm out on this.
People love their 50 pound dogs, others love their 100 pound dogs. Hopefully, both dogs found the right homes. That's what maters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
Or one that values oversized dogs, as long as they can work....:unsure:
Let me put it to you like this. I want the best working dog, whether 45 lbs or 110. You want a 100 lb dog that can work. If you don’t see the fundamental difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
A very brisk consistent trot that leaves the dog gassed after an hour. He actually behaves afterwards as if endorphins have been released and is very active. It takes about one hour to circle six soccer fields 14 times.
That is pretty good for a big fella.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,135 Posts
have things really gotten that tense?
i’m just sitting on the couch, listening to joni mitchell with a cat on my lap, sipping tea.... cool as a cucumber, talking about dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,387 Posts
I was responding to someone that essentially stated that the breed standard was for highlines. I was merely pointing out that the height and weight requirements were set according to ideal working size, not what "looks" the best.

If we didn't have written breed standards as a guideline for ideals, then everyone would breed their own flavor and the end result would be that we would lose GSDs, and all breeds, as we know them. Ultimately, they would revert to pariah dogs and gene pools would be forever gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuvShepherds

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
Just to point out that YOU are the only one saying 49# and slightly smaller.

Nobody else said that so you are kind of arguing with yourself. 🤔

Let us know which side wins.
\
You yourself said 51# and slightly smaller (in b/w above) and I corrected my quote of 49 (which seems to fall in slightly smaller than 51 anyway so no matter)

MAWL said "49# and slightly smaller is just as much standard as 88# and slightly heavier"

This is not an argument, why do you feel someone has to win?
 
41 - 60 of 98 Posts
Top