Candace, the difficult thing is knowing what is function and what is form. For example, it is pretty obvious that breeding for Show IS breeding for form. It is less obvious that breeding for Schutzhund is also breeding for form. Breeding a dog to work in the East German border environment (in modern times) would be breeding for function, but in terms of breed history it too is breeding for form.

The true breeding for function is breeding the dog to be used by and for sheepherders. The dog excels in all those other areas because of the sheep herding function. The (modern) working ability, the protective ability, the looks, and the trainability are all forms that fall out of the German sheep herding dog function.

Think of it this way, say we would breed a dog for its (modern) working ability, for protective ability, for the looks AND for the trainability, the odds that a German sheep herder could make a living from that dog are doubtful. On the opposite hand we could probably take the sheepherder’s dog and he would excel in all those areas. That makes it easy to spot the function over the form.

Of course, the people who live the sheep herding life style are far and few between, as is the demand for dogs that can function in that area. If one tried to breed GSD's that way, the costs would be sky high and the output low. So people changed into breeding for those forms and as a result changed those forms into functions. It is a move that does "damage" the breed, but it occurs for the reasons stated above.

So today, we have people breeding for looks (under the deception it leads to function), and we have people who breed for working ability (a form now turned into function). Of course working ability also has "forms" that drop out of it, for example Schutzhund. There are a lot of people who breed for Schutzhund who are under the delusion that they are breeding for function, but in reality it is just a different type of show breeding. Again the simple way to think of it is, which dog has the better chance of excelling, a dog bred for Schutzhund that is expected to operate in a boarder guard environment or a dog bred as a boarder guard running Schutzhund. That is another one where I think the answer is obvious, but the proof is simple, if Schutzhund were a function instead of a form the Germans would not be looking to Belgium for dogs.

So that is the short version of ‘Thomas Treatise on breed destruction’ :-). It is also for those reasons why I, on the big picture scale, don't have a problem with 'pet' breeders. Pet breeders usually have much broader gene pools than people who breed for any of the modern forms. And genetic diversity is one of those things that cannot be recovered when it is lost. Again another way to think of it, if you were trying to redevelop the original intent of the breed, say for some unknown reason sheep herding becomes very profitable and the dogs are needed again. Could we bring back the original Shepard from the show breeders?, doubtful. Could we bring back the original Shepard from the working breeders?, certainly a much better chance of it than using show dogs. Could we bring back the Shepard from pet lines?, most likely, since all the genetic information is there, but it would take a lot of work. The best (and quickest) way would be a mix of pet and working lines. And that is exactly why I don't mind pet breeders; they keep a reservoir of genetic information available that can allow us to fix the well-intentioned mistakes made by the other types of breeders. For those of you who still don't quite get what I'm talking about, I suggest you read this link about what was done to the Basenji

http://www.jabed.com/genes.htm

The one thing that does make the GSD much more fortunate than a LOT of other working breeds is that there is a well developed market for something other than just show or pet.
I think a lot of GSD aficionados really don’t know how good they have got it.

Thomas, Thankyou for sharing.I read the article about the Basenji. Very Impressive indeed!! It just so happens that I have two Basenji's by my side.The owners trust only me in caring for them when they have to go out of town. Genes whether dominant (obvious)..or those that are recessed can only be recognised by observation given time and exposure within different cultures (lines).The old term "New Blood" has to be considered..in a breeding program.But my feelings are that there is too much emphasis placed on obvious traits for the end result...in most cases.Outcrossing produces hybrid vigour but it must be carefully done. In ref to form ..foregoing ANY standards set...I think it best to watch the dog in a natural setting to see the balance of the anatomy.The same goes for function..with a watchful eye. Again in a natural setting.You can learn alot about the genetics of the individual if carefully placed in a natural pack.You can also improve the weaker traits...and subdue the dominant ones.Whether in breeding/training..We have them in our palms.They are in our setting.A good trainer will dive in and research the makings of the individual including enviroment in order to process training.A good breeder will analyze every aspect of the "Blood" titled or not.If a litter is produced..a good breeder will follow yet again into analyzing...every aspect. Candace

Candace,

The key to being a good breeder, or improving the breed, is not in the research of bloodlines, or even starting with the best bloodlines. The real key is an in-depth knowledge of the customer and getting in-depth honest high quality feedback from that customer. For the sheepherder this was easy, he was his own customer, he understood his needs, he knew EVERY variable that affected the capabilities of his dogs. It is that type of understanding, and the feedback that is needed to allow one to make proper breeding decisions.

You can start off with all the greatest lines and with the most knowledgeable study of form, but without high quality, honest, insightful feedback from the customer, in a very few generations those breedings will be utterly useless. On the other hand, one could start out with unknown dogs and little knowledge of form, but with high quality, honest, insightful feed back from the customer, and in a few generations have acceptable dogs.

If you really want to help a breed, its not the study of pedigree that is important it is the feedback of results that is important. Towards that goal, to start breeding effectively one should lineup and partner with the customer to get that feedback. For example, if you want to breed "drug dogs", then it is best to have contacts with people who are actually using "drug dogs" (as opposed to people who just train them). . Feedback from intermediaries is close to worthless

Of course everything, I just stated is MUCH easier said than done. That is why you will hear so few people talking about it. It is also why you will hear so much talk about the easy things like pedigree. It is also why there are so many "counterfeit customers" out there. It is much easier to get feed back from a created "counterfeit customer" than it is to hook up with a real one. A show judge is a prime example of a counterfeit customer. They don't buy your dog, they don't use your dog, but they sure will give you lots of feedback. Another counterfeit customer is the "training title". The title by itself is not a customer, nor does it offer useful feedback BY ITSELF. But people will treat these things like customers and use them for feedback, namely because it is much easier than getting feedback from someone who is actually using the dog for its intended function.

In the end, the problem with most breeders, and the reason the breed gets “damaged”, is that breeders will do the leg work to get the finest raw materials but in truth they have no idea how to breed to meet their customer’s needs nor will they communicate with the real customer to find out.

Thomas, you're going to have to explain your understanding of breeding for form and/or for function to me.


You lost me bud. Going back to the Schutzhund or government breeding station example.

Breeding for function- you are breeding the dog for its actual intended and previously designed for use.

Breeding for form- not breeding for the original purpose, but instead breeding for only a small part of what the dog has to do well in order to perform its original function. The ‘forms” are the various things that the dog has to do well in order to do the’ function’


The difference between the two, is that if you breed for the function (the whole package) the dog should do well in all the parts that make up that function, ie trainability, protection, won't kill sheep, alertness, etc; but if you breed for the parts, you not can hope to have a dog that can do the original function. Its like Dr Frankestein trying to put together a living being from its various parts. It is not going to work now matter how finally crafted each individual body part is. The only way it works is if you breed for the whole body at once. Or again in other terms, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.,

The simplest way I think of it in the GSD is that dogs that are actually bred to be used in service should for the most part do well in something like Schutzhund. But having a dog that is bred for Schutzhund is nowhere near a guarantee that the dog will do well in actual service. Or, breeding a dog that can protect you does not mean that it can go out and run sheep. But breeding a dog that can run sheep will lead to a dog that can protect you.

Ok, you're adding on some additional meaning there that I haven't encountered when talking about form vs. function.

Generally form is the dog's conformation, function is his ability and drive. That's what most dog folks are usually talking about. As I understand you, you're using the words to describe a slightly different situation, and that's fine. . .I just didn't know what the hell you were talking about.


I do take issue with your idea that breeding a herding dog is going to get you a protection dog. There are plenty examples of herding dogs that make for terrible protection dogs. You could argue that the tending style is a bit different than most other herding styles, but you can't discount the fact that going back to day one for the GSD breed there have been more considerations than just tending ability when considering breeding.

The environment of continental Europe, the necessity of the frugal shepherds, the need for a protective farm dog as well as a herder, and the goals of the breed founder all contributed to the choices made to form the breed. (and the jack-of-all-trades abilities that he still can posses)Protective abilities, police and military service, tracking, etc all did play a part in the selective process that von Stephanitz used. I won't argue that most of those virtues existed in the breed because of the tending work and the breeding to maintain it, but I will argue that there were other factors that influenced breeding.

Overall the continental herding/guarding dogs all share the same influences. Not only were they bred for herding, but also for other guarding work as well. That influence is there going WAY WAY back. The good shepherd's dog was also a good protector of flock and shepherd and it wasn't an accident, they wanted them to have those traits.

Thomas, You hit the nail on the head...in ref to any future breedings I do.As I stated before..I am not into sales..Money is beneficial..but I want to learn more about what is within that I am breeding..and make few mistakes.I am not one to just hop in and go forward with any of my dogs..in titling.To be frank..I appear worthless to the very few friends I have..because I cannot make my mind.The group are..schHutzen..tracking..AKC showing/obedience.I know exactly what titles my dogs could attain...and certifications...based upon their "natural sense..genetically"...with much observation...as to function.I also see what form the individual has to accommplish that function.I agree that over-emphasis is placed upon pedigree. In ref to the customer..I am hoping..that somehow someway..each pup goes to different "Typed " homes...so that I can learn more...and breed accordingly..for the "Old Dog". Candace

Thomas, You are quite right. The narrower achievable goal would be to step outside of my box..with one or two of my dogs and enter into competition..in schHutzen.There is one club that I know of in Pensacola,Fla. I wish I could find someone that is "solid/committed"..locally that I could work with...and learn.Do you;Van Camp or Will Rambeau know of anyone in Baldwin County,Ala that could help me get started? Candace