i just meant that there's where "working dogs" start crossing over to pure "sporting dogs" - and that's not what the GSD originally was either...

i've noticed what seems to be a bit of pseudo double-speak at times during my short experience with the sport - working people blast show or just non-working dogs as not being real GSD's (relax - i'm NOT defending show lines, just making a point...), but then those same people seem to forget that their dogs aren't technically "working" dogs either - they're bred and (highly) trained to compete in a "sport." granted, their sport of choice is one originally designed to test the working capabilities of their breed of choice, but i don't think you can argue that there is a difference. and no, i'm not forgetting that there are dogs and handlers out there that do (or could do) both, and do it well...

Chris,
Remember that SchH as a "sport" was originally designed as a breeding suitablity test for the GSD. It was suppose to test a dog to a minimum standard to prove the dogs worth.

And a sport that tests three subjects ( ob, protection, and tracking ) is a pretty complete test for most uses of the GSD, now that herding is not commonly required by most people.

You're right, but don't you think there's probably some differences between the "sport" we see on the field today and the "breeding suitability test" of days gone by - in terms of the types of dogs winning and doing well?

Sure, the sport dogs are a heck of a lot better than the alternative (show, etc.), but calling a dog a working dog because they participate (only) in schutzhund may not be completely accurate.

a professional boxer may be called a fighter, but put him in an alley with a seasoned street fighter and our perceptions of "tough" might change in hurry.

The fighters analogy is a good one, Chris, but what are we suppose to do, throw two dogs into a pit, let them fight, and the winner gets breeding rights?
And street fights are usually won by technique and surprise, not by who's in the best shape. It'd be a *rare* street fighter that could go ten rounds in a boxing ring.
You would see a guy named "Tank" in the early days of the Ultimate Fighting sports, who was a street fighter - he either won or lost within the first two rounds, after that he was pooped.

And yes, SchH has changed a bit in the seventy odd years that it's been around - additional exercises, etc. But I still think it's a valid test. My main interest is ASR now, but I think that a SchH title recieved under a ideal conditions ( non-cheating SchH organization running the trial, neutral judge not influenced by favors or that other judge owns the dog, etc. ) should be the minimal acceptable title for breeding a GSD in the U.S.
Add passing hip x-rays to a SchH title as I've described above and you'd know the dog was breed worthy.

Breeds change and transform, just like people have changed since my dad was a kid. When he was growing up, a BIG highschool kid in football was 170 lbs. Now there are girls bigger than that. The article about the bull terriers, in my opinion is not really that relevant because what the breed was originally bred for is no longer legal, so why breed that way now?? GSD's are similar. People (breeders) only breed what people want. Just like these gas guzzling SUV's out there. Everyone cries about gas prices and yet the gas guzzlers are selling more than they did when gas was .50 per gallon. It's very difficult if not impossible to breed dogs today for what they were originally intended for. I hate to sound like the devils advocate but it's the truth.
Jake

Breeds do change as do people and everything else. I think most of the complaints here are from people that believe once you start breeding for how a dog looks, you lose the dog. The point being that temperment and workability and everything else that goes into a dog, is merely paid lip service as long as it conforms to their beauty standards. If a dog actually had to be able to work and perform with a clear head and solid nerves, you better believe people would be breeding more for that, because that's what people would want to be successful. Instead how they think a dog should look is what's important.

I have to say that I've often wondered what the "general population" thinks a working dog is.
Schutzhund may not be the defination of a working dog, but it at least shows the dog has ability to work (for the most part).

I don't really understand a person that shows in conformation, because it's just a person's opinion on what dog is better. Even though there are "standards" for the breed.
I am asked all the time about why are your dobes so small? Are they full grown. The reason is that most dobes in the "ring" are monsters according to the breed standard even of today. Mine are old type structure medium compact dogs.

I once had a "show" shepherd with 10pts toward her champ. and when people would come to my kennel they'd ask me what was wrong with her, because the rest of my dogs were of the "working" structure. Not to roachy and not to angular. Kinda link the pics you see of the "original" shepherds.

Anyway, this is a good topic.

I get the exact same thing on a daily basis with mine!

Cassie and Madina are both full grown, and both about as big as female GSDs should be. Cassie is slightly above the standard and Madina is probably right around 23". I have had so many people ask me "Are they puppies?" OR they ask how old they are, and I tell them, and they say "Oh, I thought they were younger than that."

At first I tried to explain to people that this is how big a shepherd SHOULD be - but I gave up when it was obvious that these people just didn't care. They were used to seeing oversized American dogs...so in their minds, that's how big a shepherd should be. :rolleyes: