Forming a breed club in the US

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.

10-04-2010, 14:58	#30
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.