Forming a breed club in the US

Nebulosa · 10-04-2010, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by soniakanavle

By 'standard' I mean the original written breed standard from the country of origin. And no, I don't think that should be up to 'interpretation.'

I agree, the main problem is that "second interpretation of standard" often comes because the total "non understanding of what the standard wants", CzW already pass for such problem, its standard is very complet and detailed, but few people and even breeders are able to understand it, so what we can meet are a huge ammount of breeders (and also a huge ammout of juges) able to only judge the head of the dogs having a small idea about the basic of it (like small ears and ambar eyes), but with no idea about how the body should look like, how the dog should move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukidomari

I am a FIRM believer that a breed that is attractive AND also bred to work, will always split into work-show lines.

When people does not know the standard, they start to select what is more "bautifull" at their eyes and what they think its correct, they will use the excuse that its "his line" or "his way of breeding" or even "his show line" as some people will use the excuse to say "my dog dont need be at standard as its working line", if you look the CzW standard, will see that animals that follow close what the standard says are surely better working animals, a CzW with nice body format according the standard will have more endurance than one with round atipical chest and shorth legs for exemple, but some judges will preffer the short legged heavy animal because its looks "nicer" than the correct one.
The workability and the standard walks togeter, you will see people trying to split it in two for dont accept tat what they're doing is wrong, and its common in all breeds, also called "kennel blindness", its up to the club avoid it and conscientize people and new owners about what is right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

Vlcaks descended from GSDs that had to earn titles in order to be bred. I am sure that the original Vlcak breeding program relied on similar tests to make sure they were breeding only the best

You see, a club that wants working titles, show titles and a restrict selection of the individual looks nice in the paper, but it can be a trap for the bree itself, principaly for a breed like CzW.
Supose in USA you find a owner wich hve a nice CzW with a very rare line, old animal without nothing, no X rays, no dogshows much less working titles, the owner have no will to make it, but he accept make the X rays without problems, you will not be able to use this dog as it should be used because the dog have no titles and shows, you can end to lost a nice bloodline because of a nonense title.
I think the club should help giving all conditions and informing people about how good is work with the dogs and how importand it could be, but not use it as rule for a stud dog.
We cant forget also about the fact that working titles and show titles can influencie in the people choise of a stud, so you can get a very titled dog with ok health results, but terrible line in health and even appearence, being over used because its a "titled dog", it can turn in a huge problem for the breed.

I think would be very nice the club make a breeding comission, with the will of select the mattings, avoiding the lost of lines or the overuse of a single stud, not only that, but also avoiding dangerous matings that can cause unhealty pups or even matings with no interest at all for the future of the breed.
About the request, I think important are the healty tests, when mostly breeders ( and even very experienced ones) have a huge problems for understand the standard, judge their dogs and mates, will not be a FCI or AKC judge that will be able to say if the dog is or not in the standard.
Not much different with the working tests, that you can simply traine a dog with terrible character to make a show in the training field or with the helpler.

yukidomari · 10-04-2010, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebulosa

The workability and the standard walks togeter, you will see people trying to split it in two for dont accept tat what they're doing is wrong, and its common in all breeds, also called "kennel blindness", its up to the club avoid it and conscientize people and new owners about what is right.

I agree with you there. Most optimally, of course, form should always follow function... but then again, in the art of purebred dogs that isn't so clear cut. Form following function in almost all working breeds would probably be best with an open stud book, then, ideally. But I don't know of any breed that is really willing to accept that. And, above that, standards are only written about physical characteristics. Usage of a dog has always been left up to interpretation... original use is a good start, but then again, usage evolves.

Nebulosa · 10-04-2010, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by yukidomari

Form following function in almost all working breeds would probably be best with an open stud book, then, ideally.

Do you means by open stud book, accept mates with other breeds?

Quote:

And, above that, standards are only written about physical characteristics. Usage of a dog has always been left up to interpretation... original use is a good start, but then again, usage evolves.

The standars should have the behaviour/temperament description, also as a historical brief, so, the behaviour are not up to the interpretation, maybe the usage can be mistaken, but nothing that a little bit more of study about the breed would not solve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCI standard of the breed

BRIEF HISTORICAL SUMMARY:
In the year 1955 a biological experiment took place in the CSSR of that time, namely, the crossing of a German Shepherd Dog with a Carpathian wolf. The experiment established that the progeny of the mating of male dog to female wolf as well as that of male wolf to female dog, could be reared. The overwhelming majority of the products of these matings possessed the genetic requirements for continuation of breeding. In the year 1965, after the ending of the experiment, a plan for the breeding of this new breed was worked out. This was to combine the usable qualities of the wolf with the favourable qualities of the dog. In the year 1982, the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, through the general committee of the breeder's associations of the CSSR of that time, was recognized as a national breed

BEHAVIOUR-TEMPERAMENT:
Lively, active, tough, obedient with quick reactions, fearless and courageous. Shows tremendous loyalty towards his master. Resistant to weather conditions. Versatile in his uses.

draggar · 10-04-2010, 15:50

(I had several quotes but decided to just post since many of them would overlap and editing / re-editing would be a real pain!).

Sadly, dogs that were bred to work split into two factions (for the lack of a better term) - the show people and the working people. Sadly, the working dogs usually don't do well in the show ring because they don't look as nice as the show dogs. As far as I know every breed was engineered for a purpose, to do a job, and none of their jobs was to look nice - so why the stress on their physical look? While I agree structure is very important (hips, build, stamina, etc..) these points are quite often overlooked in the AKC show ring and the same goes with temperament. I've seen very few dogs that do well in the working world and the show world.

As for interpretation - yes, there is room for some interpretation but some aspects there isn't. Take GSDs for example, every standard states "Must show confidence". Not can, not may, not should, MUST. In my book, "must" means 100% of the dogs should have that quality. Sadly, to often I see GSDs in the AKC show ring that are skittish, afraid of other dogs, afraid of the judge, the handler, and even trying their hardest to avoid everything when in the ring - where is the confidence in that? If the standard says "MUST show confidence" then why are these dogs being rewarded? If it's a chance of "well, it's the least bad dog in there" - the judges CAN with hold ribbons - I've seen it before.

"Pet" owned GSDs. Yes, the vast majority of dog owners in the USA want a pet but I think most of them have the wrong dog. If you want a dog that is going to be friends with everyone, love the family, and love strangers then don't get a GSD, get a lab (like Dug in the movie Up). If you really wanted a car that had great gas mileage - would you get an SUV? Nope, you'd get a compact or a hybrid. The same with a GSD - it is a WORKING breed. The breed is meant for herding (with protection implied in that job). Unless you wanted a guardian or a partner, why get a GSD? People looking for a pet need to research breeds and decide on what breed to get before getting the dog.

As Luna's mom said, in every litter there will be dogs that won't stand up to the quality of the breed (it is unavoidable) and yes, those should be adopted out as pets, but they should also have spay / neuter clauses in their contracts (where it is legal) so their genes are not put back into the gene pool.

yukidomari · 10-04-2010, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by draggar

As far as I know every breed was engineered for a purpose, to do a job, and none of their jobs was to look nice - so why the stress on their physical look?

I don't think that for the most part the art of purebred dogs can simply be put into 'purpose only'. There are a few dogs that are widely purpose bred - see racing greyhounds and Alaskan Huskies.. I've seen true racing greyhounds and those dogs you would hardly even recognize as a greyhound. Alaskan Huskies aren't considered a breed.. people breed them expressly for speed and endurance in snow, and only that. They don't care if they have masks, if they have standing ears, if they are white or grey or all black. They don't care if they are 30lbs or if they are 50lbs. As long as they get the job done and get it done well, sledders breed them, and they don't care what breed it is. Implicit in this is that Alaskan Huskies are a group of mixed breeds bred for work.

And you know what? Those dogs reflect that 100%.. from one Alaskan Husky to the other you will find very little in the way of *any* true type of uniformity. But they do the work. Is that what you're talking about? Then if that's so, why do we need a set of physical standards? Because purebred dogs are about the entire package - BOTH how they look and how they are supposed to act. It doesn't make sense to say looks don't matter and nobody should stress it. Looks are every bit as important to the purebred dog as how they act.

"Take GSDs for example, every standard states "Must show confidence". Not can, not may, not should, MUST."
Right, but this leaves room for interpretation too. One person's judgment of how much confidence is sufficient, differs from another's person's judgment on sufficient confidence. Is a dog that has passed SchH "confident"? Sure, within the boundaries of the sport. But there are many police dogs in training out of SchH kennels that do wash out. Were they not confident enough?

All very complicated questions, indeed.

Nebulosa - Open stud book: Mostly this means dogs of unknown or unregistered parents, who are of-type, can be registered officially into the breed, so to speak. So say you have a dog you think, looks, acts like a CSV. But.. you've no papers and you don't really know.. for all you know it could be a mix. Actually the AKC FSS system works under open stud book.

Luna's mom said, "I have been in SchH for 17 years and have yet to see an American bred dog in the sport."

Have you heard of the American GSD kennel Valiantdale?

Gypsy Wolf · 10-04-2010, 20:16

Firstly, I didn't mean to open a can of worms!

The dictionary definition of a "breed" is "a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans." According to most registries, that means that the members of said breed must breed "true" - produce similar animals. That's one reason "labrodoodles" aren't a breed - they do not breed true after F1. Alaskan huskies haven't been purpose-bred for as long a time as other breeds like a greyhound (perhaps when they are an older breed we will see more homogenosity)- and though there is a difference between show and racing greyhounds, it is clear they are the same breed.
Part of the reason for the physical standard is not only to maintain "type" but to promote correct structure for that particular breed. It's not for "pretty" as much as for function. For instance, the angulation in the GSD - that is supposed to promote the breed as an efficient trotting dog - covering the most amount of ground with the least amount of steps. The American-Line GSDs took that quite far - so far they now walk on their pasterns and hocks and can no longer get over jumps.
Yes, there is certainly room for interpretation, but some things are just OBVIOUS. I have seen GSDs in the AKC ring hit the deck in fear during the "temperament test" and get FIRST PLACE. There is no question that that is not a correct temperament! The dog should've been excused, but instead, it had a lovely, extreme side gait so was rewarded.
The Vlcak's standard is to maintain both physical structure and type and character traits - "shyness is to be disqualified." That means, to me, that no matter how good and perfectly built a shy dog is, it should not be bred.
Again, there is room for interpretation... Luna can be aloof and hesitant in new situations, but I do not see "shyness." There is no running away or cowering behind me. Perhaps a Labrador person would consider her aloofness "shy" as they are used to a very gregarious breed.
Anyway, the point for me, is to maintain the breed, as best I can, to the standard, by word and "in spirit" - the stuff between the lines that is not written down, like courage, drive and heart. I am a steward of an amazing breed and I don't want to "water it down" just because it is more difficult to live with than a collie... American breeders are famous for doing just that - look at the American Doberman for instance - totally different temperament than the German dogs. The Am-line Dobes are sweet, soft dogs - excellent "pets" but not so good for what they were bred to do.
There are those who argue that the work of dogs has changed, and yes it has, to a degree, but I don't want to sacrifice the working character of the Vlcak just to make it a "good pet"...

yukidomari · 10-04-2010, 20:29

Luna's mom, I hope you understand that I actually agree with 99% of the things you said.

Just trying to raise a few points usually overlooked, that's all. And BTW AmDobes (we've got one).. you've better believe that the DPCA worked tirelessly throughout the '60s and '70s to bring about what is the AmDobe today, ON PURPOSE, not for lack of caring. Today, they are good for dog sports, precision work, and for stealing beds (ask me! I know

)

Yeah, I think there are just so many issues at work here, but I don't think it's entirely fair to disparage entire groups/countries/breeds/breeders. For better or worse I think anyone who actually, truly cares about the breed, regardless of direction, is still in it for the right reason and ultimately contributes a large and varied pool from which to choose mates from, and I do think as a whole enriches the breed.

And, certainly some things are for function - fur, angulation, etc. And some standards are for aethetics. Color of hair, color of eyes.. shape of head (does a deeper stop get in the way of work?).. etc.

Gypsy Wolf · 10-04-2010, 14:58

Hmmm, well it seems some of the information out there is wrong, if they were primarily bred for "tracking" according to the recent post, however, regardless of whether their primary function was tracking, I cannot believe that a Border Patrol dog was not expected to grip. A main function of most, if not all, Border Patrol dogs is to grip, so a minimum foundation of bitework is necessary. Why else would the CsV breeding program weed out unsuitable character? Any dog can track if it has a nose.
As to the above posts, yes, I think being a pet is not a bad thing, but in ANY litter there are "pet" puppies, so why breed just for that? Max von Stephanitz must be rolling in his grave at the state of the American GSD. I have been in SchH for 17 years and have yet to see an American bred dog in the sport. I also know of no American dogs that serve in police or military functions. Very sad, as we tout ourselves as producing the "best of the best"...
I agree that there will likely always be a difference between dogs bred for show and those for work, but by requiring both working and conformation titles, we can narrow down that division quite a bit.
Since we still have guidance from the founder of the breed, I feel strongly that we should institute rules to keep the standards of the breed high - so we don't go through the same pitfalls that other breeds before have (did you know that the single "reason" that the American GSDs look and act the way they do is due to CH. Lance of Fran-Jo?) with giving up "drive" for "easy in the house" or "popular stud" pedigree bottlenecking (you see that in West German Highlines with Uran v Wildsteigerland). If someone wants a good "pet" they can get a different breed. I don't want to see the CsV turn into a collie... no offense intended - I actually have a collie.

Pavel · 10-04-2010, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

Hmmm, well it seems some of the information out there is wrong, if they were primarily bred for "tracking" according to the recent post, however, regardless of whether their primary function was tracking, I cannot believe that a Border Patrol dog was not expected to grip. A main function of most, if not all, Border Patrol dogs is to grip, so a minimum foundation of bitework is necessary. Why else would the CsV breeding program weed out unsuitable character? Any dog can track if it has a nose.

Maybe will be not bad, if you read some books about situation in Czechoslovakia in years after year 1948. First was practically no dogs needed (its not true 100%, but simply say), because around the western border was high voltage fence. After them was signal wall, but not so, like imagine many people "on west". Mostly was signal wall hounderts up to kilometers before real border line. On some places was kilometres before realy borders made from state police a false border, because people without maps (owned or drawing detail maps of border region was a heavy crime) think, that are just on german or austrian territory and dont hide self more (easy prey for border police). Border police dont need, like in democratic country, on border people catching and arresting. On western border was 1-3 times (I dont right now not exactly rules, because they was changing in the time) call up to stops and then was normally to set gun and shooting. Specially in the years, when starting the experiment with crossing GDS and wolves, get every soldier, which kill the man on border, special reward. Dog was in this years only secondary tool for stoping. Dog was primary for tracing.

Gypsy Wolf · 10-04-2010, 20:45

I didn't mean to disparage anyone - I have been training dogs and "in dogs" for 17 years now. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but American breeders are well-known for "watering down" working breeds to make them better pets. I don't think that is necessarily in the best interests of the breed. If you love a Malinois, for instance, you take into consideration it is an aggressive breed by nature - if you don't like that, get something else! Don't ruin the working drive because it is more difficult to live with for the Average Joe. That's what worries me about the Vlcak in the United States.
I love Dobes, GSDs, Belgian Shepherds - and it breaks my heart to see what has happened via American Breeders. What happened to the dog that was supposed to be a natural "manstopper"??? Are the Dobe folks really proud of what they've created? I am using the breed just as an example - no offense intended. But really, if you want to get a Dobe or GSD that can "stop a man" you DON'T look at American-line dogs - you go overseas. Pathetic that our police and military have to go the Europe to find dogs that can work... that's what I DON'T want to happen to the Vlcak.

yukidomari · 10-04-2010, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

Are the Dobe folks really proud of what they've created?

Actually, for the most part, yes. You would not believe how much bad press, bad rep, and what not that has threatened the Dobe. Back in the day Dobes were today's Pittie, and you see the same type of movement of responsible APBTs today, too.. breeding for a more even temperament, less reactive, less dog aggressive. Do *I* agree? Not sure where I stand on that, actually.

And actually, if you think about it, all dogs except those few bred expressly for companionship (and even then, a large number of the littles were ratters) all have a job. Just because almost of today's Rough Collies and Retriever types have been relegated to companionship/family dogs only means that their direction as a breed has gone away from work - not that they were always there from the start.

Again, the whole Europe vs. US divide - should always be kept in mind that Europe has every bit as many poorly bred dogs as anywhere else. Has every bit as many 'working kennels' looking to make a buck, and also lots of kennels willing to ship inferior dogs overseas. Good breeders are good breeders, no matter where they are. And a dog born in Germany is not any 'better' solely based on that.. it can all only be attributed to the individual breeders and breed club that stands behind them.

10-04-2010, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by yukidomari

And actually, if you think about it, all dogs except those few bred expressly for companionship (and even then, a large number of the littles were ratters) all have a job. Just because almost of today's Rough Collies and Retriever types have been relegated to companionship/family dogs only means that their direction as a breed has gone away from work - not that they were always there from the start.

Isn't this the whole point everyone's trying to make? Don't repeat history! These breeds are being brought up as an example of how real, functional, working dogs have been watered down to the point where they're just soft companion animals with different looks for different tastes. There are plenty of breeds out there that we don't need to turn the CsV into "another pretty face." Divisions in a breed are NOT inevitable if we stop it in its tracks! Just because it happens and it's the norm, it does NOT mean it has to be tolerated!!

I just want to clarify that when I said breeding needs to be open to interpretation (regarding rules of a breed club) I meant in more subtle ways of testing a dog's working character, I don't in any way mean that a breeder could go & say, "Eh, I want my dogs to be more calm & easy to manage, to make great pets!" when the dog should not in any way have that sort of temperament. The whole point of purebred dogs should be breed preservation, which means holding to and testing correct temperament. When a breeder strives to develop their line, it's to come as close as possible to their vision of the breed standard, not to bastardize it. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel on the subject.

yukidomari · 10-04-2010, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky

Isn't this the whole point everyone's trying to make? Don't repeat history! These breeds are being brought up as an example of how real, functional, working dogs have been watered down to the point where they're just soft companion animals with different looks for different tastes. There are plenty of breeds out there that we don't need to turn the CsV into "another pretty face." Divisions in a breed are NOT inevitable if we stop it in its tracks! Just because it happens and it's the norm, it does NOT mean it has to be tolerated!!

I'll agree to disagree then.

My pet Dobe is not the same as my pet Minpin, who simply 'looks different' than one another.

Surely, they are not working dogs nor are they from working lines, but they have characters though not working drive of their forebears.

I am NOT advocating turning the CSV into a soft companion breed..

Just merely musing.

GalomyOak · 10-04-2010, 21:48

My opinion, for what it's worth...

I absolutely want to see this breed move forward with working goals in mind. But as Nebulosa pointed out, we are not in a place - as a breed - in Europe, and certainly not in the US, to discredit dogs if they don't have titles. The breed doesn't have enough genetic diversity to withstand that kind of pressure on selection at this point. I think it is a very noble goal for the breed/club to reach for one day - and of course there should be controls on breeding with dogs with good health, and no disqualifying features - especially in structure and temperament. I think a breeding commission is an excellent idea.

A few misconceptions about AKC tracking. First off, tracking (ground) and trailing (air) are totally different scent theories - trailing is used in SAR, and typically has a quicker and more efficient accuracy. Tracking trials are completely blind - the flags are only used in training. It's an excellent sport, my CSVs have very deep noses and deviate from the track very little in comparison to many of the other dogs out there (Goldens, GSD, Weimeraner). Don't think it should be used as a sole qualifier of a breedable dog...

Won't get into American v. Europe. I know good and bad breeders of all mentioned breeds in both places. I have an American bred GSD from heavy Swiss and German lines, with Lord vom Gleisd... featured recently. Love her to death, makes me crazy to work with her.

I am glad these discussions are happening - even if they are uncomfortable. It's important! I think it's also important to keep in mind that ALL of our experiences in the US with the breed are limited - I know my perceptions certainly changed after my visit to Europe last spring where I met many dogs and breeders - important to remember there is still quite a bit of variation within the breed, not everyone's experiences will be the same.

Marcy

soniakanavle · 11-04-2010, 03:17

Yukidomari, I think maybe you should look into getting a different breed, it doesn't sound like what you're looking for is a CsV.

Gypsy Wolf · 11-04-2010, 22:11

OK, so my question to the American Dobie, GSD, etc. folks is this: If they truly love the breed, why did they change it so it no longer behaves as it was designed to? Just because they liked it's looks and not it's character? In that case, are they really stewards of the breed with it's best interests at heart?
Removing aggression/sharpness from a breed designed to be a "man-stopper" just because of "bad press"? THAT'S THE BREED. If you can't handle the temperament, get another breed - don't turn it into dishwater!
If you go to Jimmy Moses' Kaleef GSD site, he guarantees excellent "show" dogs... GSDs were designed to be WORKING DOGS. Turning them into a pretty sidegait with no working ability is reprehensible! How dare they say they "love the breed"?

10-04-2010, 15:50	#4
draggar Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 370	(I had several quotes but decided to just post since many of them would overlap and editing / re-editing would be a real pain!). Sadly, dogs that were bred to work split into two factions (for the lack of a better term) - the show people and the working people. Sadly, the working dogs usually don't do well in the show ring because they don't look as nice as the show dogs. As far as I know every breed was engineered for a purpose, to do a job, and none of their jobs was to look nice - so why the stress on their physical look? While I agree structure is very important (hips, build, stamina, etc..) these points are quite often overlooked in the AKC show ring and the same goes with temperament. I've seen very few dogs that do well in the working world and the show world. As for interpretation - yes, there is room for some interpretation but some aspects there isn't. Take GSDs for example, every standard states "Must show confidence". Not can, not may, not should, MUST. In my book, "must" means 100% of the dogs should have that quality. Sadly, to often I see GSDs in the AKC show ring that are skittish, afraid of other dogs, afraid of the judge, the handler, and even trying their hardest to avoid everything when in the ring - where is the confidence in that? If the standard says "MUST show confidence" then why are these dogs being rewarded? If it's a chance of "well, it's the least bad dog in there" - the judges CAN with hold ribbons - I've seen it before. "Pet" owned GSDs. Yes, the vast majority of dog owners in the USA want a pet but I think most of them have the wrong dog. If you want a dog that is going to be friends with everyone, love the family, and love strangers then don't get a GSD, get a lab (like Dug in the movie Up). If you really wanted a car that had great gas mileage - would you get an SUV? Nope, you'd get a compact or a hybrid. The same with a GSD - it is a WORKING breed. The breed is meant for herding (with protection implied in that job). Unless you wanted a guardian or a partner, why get a GSD? People looking for a pet need to research breeds and decide on what breed to get before getting the dog. As Luna's mom said, in every litter there will be dogs that won't stand up to the quality of the breed (it is unavoidable) and yes, those should be adopted out as pets, but they should also have spay / neuter clauses in their contracts (where it is legal) so their genes are not put back into the gene pool. __________________ Fred Lanting's Official Site Dog Actors

10-04-2010, 21:48	#14
GalomyOak Howling Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 436	My opinion, for what it's worth... I absolutely want to see this breed move forward with working goals in mind. But as Nebulosa pointed out, we are not in a place - as a breed - in Europe, and certainly not in the US, to discredit dogs if they don't have titles. The breed doesn't have enough genetic diversity to withstand that kind of pressure on selection at this point. I think it is a very noble goal for the breed/club to reach for one day - and of course there should be controls on breeding with dogs with good health, and no disqualifying features - especially in structure and temperament. I think a breeding commission is an excellent idea. A few misconceptions about AKC tracking. First off, tracking (ground) and trailing (air) are totally different scent theories - trailing is used in SAR, and typically has a quicker and more efficient accuracy. Tracking trials are completely blind - the flags are only used in training. It's an excellent sport, my CSVs have very deep noses and deviate from the track very little in comparison to many of the other dogs out there (Goldens, GSD, Weimeraner). Don't think it should be used as a sole qualifier of a breedable dog... Won't get into American v. Europe. I know good and bad breeders of all mentioned breeds in both places. I have an American bred GSD from heavy Swiss and German lines, with Lord vom Gleisd... featured recently. Love her to death, makes me crazy to work with her. I am glad these discussions are happening - even if they are uncomfortable. It's important! I think it's also important to keep in mind that ALL of our experiences in the US with the breed are limited - I know my perceptions certainly changed after my visit to Europe last spring where I met many dogs and breeders - important to remember there is still quite a bit of variation within the breed, not everyone's experiences will be the same. Marcy __________________ "What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us."~Henry David Thoreau http://www.galomyoak.com

10-04-2010, 20:16	#6
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	Firstly, I didn't mean to open a can of worms! The dictionary definition of a "breed" is "a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans." According to most registries, that means that the members of said breed must breed "true" - produce similar animals. That's one reason "labrodoodles" aren't a breed - they do not breed true after F1. Alaskan huskies haven't been purpose-bred for as long a time as other breeds like a greyhound (perhaps when they are an older breed we will see more homogenosity)- and though there is a difference between show and racing greyhounds, it is clear they are the same breed. Part of the reason for the physical standard is not only to maintain "type" but to promote correct structure for that particular breed. It's not for "pretty" as much as for function. For instance, the angulation in the GSD - that is supposed to promote the breed as an efficient trotting dog - covering the most amount of ground with the least amount of steps. The American-Line GSDs took that quite far - so far they now walk on their pasterns and hocks and can no longer get over jumps. Yes, there is certainly room for interpretation, but some things are just OBVIOUS. I have seen GSDs in the AKC ring hit the deck in fear during the "temperament test" and get FIRST PLACE. There is no question that that is not a correct temperament! The dog should've been excused, but instead, it had a lovely, extreme side gait so was rewarded. The Vlcak's standard is to maintain both physical structure and type and character traits - "shyness is to be disqualified." That means, to me, that no matter how good and perfectly built a shy dog is, it should not be bred. Again, there is room for interpretation... Luna can be aloof and hesitant in new situations, but I do not see "shyness." There is no running away or cowering behind me. Perhaps a Labrador person would consider her aloofness "shy" as they are used to a very gregarious breed. Anyway, the point for me, is to maintain the breed, as best I can, to the standard, by word and "in spirit" - the stuff between the lines that is not written down, like courage, drive and heart. I am a steward of an amazing breed and I don't want to "water it down" just because it is more difficult to live with than a collie... American breeders are famous for doing just that - look at the American Doberman for instance - totally different temperament than the German dogs. The Am-line Dobes are sweet, soft dogs - excellent "pets" but not so good for what they were bred to do. There are those who argue that the work of dogs has changed, and yes it has, to a degree, but I don't want to sacrifice the working character of the Vlcak just to make it a "good pet"...

10-04-2010, 20:29	#7
yukidomari Moderator Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Los Angeles CA Posts: 847	Luna's mom, I hope you understand that I actually agree with 99% of the things you said. Just trying to raise a few points usually overlooked, that's all. And BTW AmDobes (we've got one).. you've better believe that the DPCA worked tirelessly throughout the '60s and '70s to bring about what is the AmDobe today, ON PURPOSE, not for lack of caring. Today, they are good for dog sports, precision work, and for stealing beds (ask me! I know ) Yeah, I think there are just so many issues at work here, but I don't think it's entirely fair to disparage entire groups/countries/breeds/breeders. For better or worse I think anyone who actually, truly cares about the breed, regardless of direction, is still in it for the right reason and ultimately contributes a large and varied pool from which to choose mates from, and I do think as a whole enriches the breed. And, certainly some things are for function - fur, angulation, etc. And some standards are for aethetics. Color of hair, color of eyes.. shape of head (does a deeper stop get in the way of work?).. etc.

10-04-2010, 14:58	#8
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	Hmmm, well it seems some of the information out there is wrong, if they were primarily bred for "tracking" according to the recent post, however, regardless of whether their primary function was tracking, I cannot believe that a Border Patrol dog was not expected to grip. A main function of most, if not all, Border Patrol dogs is to grip, so a minimum foundation of bitework is necessary. Why else would the CsV breeding program weed out unsuitable character? Any dog can track if it has a nose. As to the above posts, yes, I think being a pet is not a bad thing, but in ANY litter there are "pet" puppies, so why breed just for that? Max von Stephanitz must be rolling in his grave at the state of the American GSD. I have been in SchH for 17 years and have yet to see an American bred dog in the sport. I also know of no American dogs that serve in police or military functions. Very sad, as we tout ourselves as producing the "best of the best"... I agree that there will likely always be a difference between dogs bred for show and those for work, but by requiring both working and conformation titles, we can narrow down that division quite a bit. Since we still have guidance from the founder of the breed, I feel strongly that we should institute rules to keep the standards of the breed high - so we don't go through the same pitfalls that other breeds before have (did you know that the single "reason" that the American GSDs look and act the way they do is due to CH. Lance of Fran-Jo?) with giving up "drive" for "easy in the house" or "popular stud" pedigree bottlenecking (you see that in West German Highlines with Uran v Wildsteigerland). If someone wants a good "pet" they can get a different breed. I don't want to see the CsV turn into a collie... no offense intended - I actually have a collie.

10-04-2010, 20:45	#10
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	I didn't mean to disparage anyone - I have been training dogs and "in dogs" for 17 years now. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but American breeders are well-known for "watering down" working breeds to make them better pets. I don't think that is necessarily in the best interests of the breed. If you love a Malinois, for instance, you take into consideration it is an aggressive breed by nature - if you don't like that, get something else! Don't ruin the working drive because it is more difficult to live with for the Average Joe. That's what worries me about the Vlcak in the United States. I love Dobes, GSDs, Belgian Shepherds - and it breaks my heart to see what has happened via American Breeders. What happened to the dog that was supposed to be a natural "manstopper"??? Are the Dobe folks really proud of what they've created? I am using the breed just as an example - no offense intended. But really, if you want to get a Dobe or GSD that can "stop a man" you DON'T look at American-line dogs - you go overseas. Pathetic that our police and military have to go the Europe to find dogs that can work... that's what I DON'T want to happen to the Vlcak.

11-04-2010, 03:17	#15
soniakanavle Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Blanco, Texas Posts: 81	Yukidomari, I think maybe you should look into getting a different breed, it doesn't sound like what you're looking for is a CsV.

11-04-2010, 22:11	#16
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	OK, so my question to the American Dobie, GSD, etc. folks is this: If they truly love the breed, why did they change it so it no longer behaves as it was designed to? Just because they liked it's looks and not it's character? In that case, are they really stewards of the breed with it's best interests at heart? Removing aggression/sharpness from a breed designed to be a "man-stopper" just because of "bad press"? THAT'S THE BREED. If you can't handle the temperament, get another breed - don't turn it into dishwater! If you go to Jimmy Moses' Kaleef GSD site, he guarantees excellent "show" dogs... GSDs were designed to be WORKING DOGS. Turning them into a pretty sidegait with no working ability is reprehensible! How dare they say they "love the breed"?