From my point of view the main problem is the politics of the akc. The standard is not the problem it's the judging. It has become a subjective exercise in who knows who.

John

I think also that under their (the AKC)tutelage (judging), many breeders are ruining many breeds for which they were once intended, and the health problems they have created with their oversized dogs etc. is devastating and sad. For them to change now would be kind of admitting that, and I don't see that happening all at once (unfortunately). We all can and should continue to try and change this though. If we are going to breed dogs, we at least owe it to them to breed healthy, useful animals. I have a moral issue with breeding dogs that are unhealthy and comparatively useless just for the sake of having them look the way YOU think they should look. The whole thing bums me out although I must admit that I haven't done much about it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I agree that the judging is responsible for the poor working abilty that the working GSD displays,however I feel that the only way to change this would be to force the judges to have to look at the working abilty in the dogs. The standard would have to be changed, or amended, to have a specific mention of what the animal must display to describe the working abilty of the animal. I think the Seiger Show should be more in lines with the Universal Seiger Show, with the judging of a Schutzhund trial done always by a working judge. It will really not matter if the conformation judge has bias to one dog , the working judges would have to have it also. This is one important thing that I feel shold change in order to save the breed. It would force conformation people to breed to a dog with a bit more work ability instead of extreme angles that a crippled.
The second would be a ZTP type system. This would be a giant step towads bringing work to conforamtion, save valuable time and maybe a few bucks. Why? It would force the work people to have thier dogs conformation evaluated at the same time as the work ability of the animal, thus making the the breed worthy.
The last thing would then have to be as many have stated, the judges education. This will be the hardest part in some cases, but over time new judges will come in and old ones go, and I believe that the breed may be better off if a this model or something simliar was put into place. I a not sure that there will be one GSD, but I do not think that the breed will be as divided as it is today.

Michael,

The only way to judge the working ability of a dog is to have them work. The AKC will never require that. Again, simply, If you are looking for the AKC to save the breed you are looking to the wrong source. The best you can hope for is that they will recognize Sch titles. That won't help, if you don't believe me look at what has happend with the Labs. Many of the working Labs no longer even look like Labs anymore, and many of the show Labs no longer even meet the Standard for size.

Richard,
Your comments are totally true,we have the same problem in the UK make them pretty and saleable for pets and to hell with the working ability of the dog.It is very difficult to find good working dogs anywhere these days but there are still a few breeders who care more about the breed than the money.A friend of mine recently bred a litter of Rotts from stock which the KC or AKC would have dismissed,pure work and no frills,he had no problem selling them as there are still people out there that know what they want,I bought four of them for a customer and all are potentially good.
Paul

Richard,
You are right that the AKC will never go for it. But WDA and USA might. In the real world I do not think this is going to happen as politics play a major role in everything, but if it were then I think that this will be the way to do it. Without a mention in or rule or requirment, whatever you may call it, you can't mention work abilty as they do, and not have a real test for it. It cannot be maintained. I stnad firm that the only way to correect this is by having the animal perform it's working abilty. Noone can look at a dog and sayhe/she is a worker by the animal standing there and being petted. It is not possiable to execute. Nor do you need a Sch title to prove the animals abilty to work either at the breed level. There must be a middle ground for breeding. Again I think it will stay the same as it has with a few diffrent dogs called the same name.

I'm Salina. What do you do with your dogs? I agree that we need to go back to the Golden Middle with GSDS.

Salina,
We use them for police or sar work,looks are not important,the working ability is.

So far I'm impressed with this thread...in fact sighing that there are other people out there devoted to improving the breed per the standard AND maintain the purpose for which the dog was originally bred: to work alongside, in conjunction with, and FOR its master. "VanCamp" I have never bred nor owned a GSD--I can read the standard, though, and see that this "cousin" to my Belgians has been struck by the AKC PReTTY PLAGUE and is--as a generality--a dumbed-down or psyched-out remnant of the impressive working dog that it was intended to be. Patrons of the breed? Referring to those that were using the dogs for their intelligence and were breeding them to reproduce such a dog--not those bent on selling 2/3 of the general public their throw-away puppies. Please--I know ZIP about GSD...I can just SEE that they AREN'T what the STANDARD says! I go watch judging and say to myself...what the hell standard did THAT judge read? Not the one I'm sitting here with evidently! Now, I know there is room for variance in what I want from a paragraph, and what any one of you would read in the same paragraph...but we know there is often dense fog where the standard is very clear--as in the Topline example.

Now this relates to what Richard and Mike have been batting back and forth... a judge must know THE standard, not the current Fad... and the competitors must be faced with a CORRECT specimen. If all that's out there is the fluffy fruitcakes, then, guess what! the fluffy fruitcake will Win! Not that it is encouraging or an easy road to change an entire nation's perspective. Look how long it took Abraham Lincoln to get everyone to see one race the same way. (They still don't--if you're wondering)

VanCamp-- a truly breathtaking specimen is regal in appearance, slightly aloof in its bearing, well muscled and moderately angled, with balance fore and aft. Explicit drive seen from the rear, and smooth tireless reach in the front. Coupled, and seen from the side, the animal appears to float, and a rock solid topline, covered in a plush, shiny coat properly achieved through correct nutrition--not by wax, spray or powder. Strong bone carried down into correct pasterns into wellshaped feet of a workman. Chest is deep and well-sprung without being round. Head in parallel planes, well defined, with eyes dark and of correct shape. Now ALL OF THIS is RUINED by a dog that is fruity, spooky, growly or just plain scared. These must be on a dog that possesses character and ability... and OOZES it. No competent dog can elude the educated. But of course, this brings us back to Knowing what the Hell you are Looking For.

Now, that was me. Anybody else up for a spin?