Exactly, some dogs are more for breeding than competition. There is a new stud used a lot in Sweden right now. He was considered to tough to get thru a SCH1, two previous owners had tried that in belgium but failed, a typical "mission impossible" by many europeans. His new owner here in sweden have actually made it thru the SCH1 now, so few dogs are impossible to compete with, but takes a lot of extra job and skill, and will probably never reach the WUSV in most cases.
With a decent dog and a very good trainer you could get very far in the SCH-world, but for breeding this is irrelevant. There are just to many highscoring SCH-dogs that because of this have got many breedings, some of them produces decent dogs that will reach the top with the right trainer, but no superdogs, let´s face it, you don´t need a very strong dog to win the WUSV. This focus on SCH only is not a good thing.

With that said, only superthough dog are probably a bit extreme for most people, including many K9 handlers. Maybe the ideal dog is somehwere between a good SCH-dog and the superthough servicedog. Talked about this subject with a breeder mainly breeding for service. They thought that sometimes it could be good to "soften" upp their breedings with a quality SCH-winner, who still is a good dog, like troll vom haus milinda and his brothers. You get the best of two worlds I guess,the trainability and high drives of the sportdog, with the hardness, stability and serious side from a line breed more for servicework than SCH.

Good points from both of you Stig and Robert. If , you are building a working line stick to strong dogs. But, the true demand for rock solid working GSD and other breeds will always have a ceiling. Who actually needs the super hard dogs Police, Gov,Military, some private business and a few responsible individual owners. Let's face some fact's most pet owners can't handle the drives of a sch dog much less a extreme working dog. I don't want any of my neighbors to own one for the simple reason too many people are irrespossible and with high drive dogs that could be dangerous.

But, for me I think good sch dogs could push the average GSD drives up to produce much nicer dogs. Maybe, GSD's should be broken into three groups. Teddy Bears, good mid to high range drives for sch(light protection) and balls to the wall for true working.

There's one of these top sch dogs here in the USA, Zidane he's 4 1/2 yrs old right now. He had scores very similar to Eros.I have heard rumors he's really hard and was a high scorer. I wish the new owner would put him on the sch trial circuit for people to see for themselves.Instead of studding him blind. But,if you look at Dogs like Eros von der Mohnwiese I think the Belgians used some strong dogs like Yoschy von der Döllenwiese and Troll von der bösen Nachbarschaft and Steffi Tiekerhook and Verwin vom Blitsaerd.

Look at top sch dogs in WUSV and BSP count how many were sire or grandsired by Yoschy or Troll N. Look at how many scored V in protection and Sg overall. Then throw in Troll's brother Timmy. But, the breeders took the rough edges off with good all around dogs. That's why I would love to see Eros bred to a high drive female just to see if you would get a high drive good at everything dog. The female I'm getting my pup from has good bite her obedience wasn't great but good and tracking was good. I got my fingers crossed I pick my boy out next week.

"But, the true demand for rock solid working GSD and other breeds will always have a ceiling. Who actually needs the super hard dogs Police, Gov,Military, some private business and a few responsible individual owners."

See....here's the problem. Isn't that what Max thought that the GSD was *suppose* to be like?
If people want something less, they can get a Golden retriver or some other soft dog. They don't need to breed GSD's down so they can get a dog that looks like a GSD, but doesn't act like one.

I agree with you if someone wants a cute lap dog or friendly lump on the floor get something else. I just wish there was a agreement that crappy dogs not be bred. Be it health or temperament.

I don't think Max's envisioned every German Shepherd would be super hard dogs. Some of the jobs gsd perform require finesse, so its up to us to breed for what we need. I think he was looking at creating a WORKING dog that could perform well enough at all jobs required so, you didn't have to have feed 3 dogs. How many super hard dogs would you trust to track a missing small child would you let that dog out of your site.

I personally want a dog that I can control with med high drive and solid nerves that can be taught to perform. If you constantly over breeding strong drives don't you risk getting dogs that most handlers cant live with without ruining it. It seems to me a novice that super high drive dogs need more and better training to get control over. Maybe its a catch 22 where no one will be completely happy. But, we shouldn't let organizations and breeders get away with passing on crappy dogs.

A lot of interesting points here. I have to agree that showlines really need to get serious about requiring a sufficient level of working ability before breeding. I would be shocked if another dog like Cliff or Nastor showed up anytime soon.

That said, I am curious about what people think about the herding test for the GSD. Obviously, there aren't many positions for working herding dogs left, so the bulk of "working" gsd's are doing police and protection work.

Is the Herding title still a valid test? And if it isn't, doesn't that change the GSD somewhat from what it was under Max? My impression being that most of the great herding dogs were very high-energy, but softer than today's schutzhund/police dogs.

Any thoughts?

--Alan...

From someone on the outside looking in (I have neither a super working dog, nor am I a breeder, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt),
I see the DESIRE to have a dog you can work with as being a seperate goal from the of the goal of a breeder.

You must breed extreme dogs in order to get the the standard bell curve distribution of drives and temperment; one or two are possible breeding prospects, the majority of the litter are great sport prospects, and maybe one or two are exellent pets, good watchdogs and deterrents to crime.

If you consistently breed medium level (or even medium high) dogs, you are breeding entropy into your program; remember nature always wants a nice happy medium.

BREEDERS want extreme dogs to get good dogs on a consistant basis, and maintain the drives and temperment necessary to produce breeding prospects, so that this can be perpetuated. This is a long term goal.

HANDLERS want a dog that they can work with, a dog that looks good on the field, and is trainable. This is a short term goal, and it does not make the dog a good breeding prospect, necessarily.

As with all things there are exceptions. There are nasty high level sport dogs, and biddable PPD and police dogs. The problem is when people think their sport dog can consistantly produce breeding prospects. It is generally not the case for a long term breeding program.

And breeding dogs with no working drives should be a crime.

As for as herding, in this country i think Border collie and Austrialian Shepherds and cattledogs have taken over.Thanks in part to low prey drive and breeding for big dogs that can't run all day long.

In Europe, I they still work GSD's and title them in herding. One of the dogs in my female GSD pedigree had a herding title. I don't think GSD's that herd are soft dogs. People believe herding is play or work it is actually prey drive that the Shepherd has tone down to keep the dogs from killing a sheep. The Shepherd's file down the points of the canine teeth to make them dull. Every now and then you will have a sheep try to bully the dog and he gets a quick butt kicking.

I would like an opinion on this. Yes I do believe that nature likes the middle ground. but what is the middle if the dog is at best middle? if his best is middle then the high end of that dogs scale is middle, so middle when he is bred is low end Yes? No?

Jeff,
As I see it, you and Melissa are really making the same point: there is a bell curve in breeding for drives, with the lower levels being the extremes and the high middle being...well, the middle.

On a mathmatical scale, if the extremes are'nt consistently included, then the high middle moves on that scale. Start using softer dogs, and the middle moves toward even more softer dogs.
(mmm, that doesn't sound real clear, even when I read it!)

But the idea is, if you don't breed for it you will lose it...the it being whatever you are looking for.
Since a middle ground as far as drives go - and as mentioned before -- will always be there, even in a litter of super drive dogs, imho a breeder needs to ALWAYS add in an extreme occasionally in their breeding program in order to keep the middle in their line acceptable.

Of course I'm just an arm-chair breeder....so you may take what I offer with a grain of salt too.

(In order to keep Robt's attention, I will add another thought in a new post.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I've never understood why organizations that use/need dogs with certain traits don't have their own breeding programs. Breeding is after all just another form of genetic engineering and it seems to me, being able to reliably predict the traits of a dog (within certain limits of course) for training is better than just buying an animal and hoping it has the right genes for the job.

I am thinking of something like the Guide Dog org: FIDELCO

(I may be wrong but I was under the impression that Lackland is now breeding it's own dogs for military use...)