Good debate gentlemen. On the personal attack note.....Not that the guy needs me to vouch for him, but VanCamp DOES refer to a lot of people as "jokers". Not necessarily a personal insult. From the vibe I get from sharing discussion with Mr. VanCamp, he can call you a Joker then have a brew with you. Its not personal. Just colorful!LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

VanCamp,

You are kidding yourself if you think that conformation has nothing to do with stamina, strength, and agility. Keep in mind that the way dogs are worked now is different than it used to be. Now it is short bursts with long periods of inactivity. I have been watching dogs for a long period time, and the one thing I see consistantly is that dogs with poor conformation can't do the work for any lenght of time. If you watch these dogs they tire quickly, and the worst examples will come up lame to the point that they have to be pulled from work to heal up.

Tail set may not have much to do with the dogs ability to work, but look at the rest of it. Bite: with out a proper bite you increase the likelyhood of breaking teeth and injuring the jaw and neck. Stance: If the dog does not stand properly (all 4 feet pointing the same direction) it changes the stress points up and down the legs including the elbows, hips, shoulders, and feet. Gait: The proper gait is produced by the proper alignment of the body parts. It also demonstrates the ability for the dog to move properly for speed, agility, and provides an idea about stamina (the dog may be out of shape, but the proper gait will allow the dog to be conditioned and work harder longer). Head Shape and Size: The bite is based on the proper articulation of the jaw, which is a function of the shape of the head and muzzle.

The problem with this debate comes down to people are willing to sacrifice a portion of the entire equation. It is much harder to breed for both conformation and working ability. Now you can't excuse either. Each side of the argument has always made the same arguments from the opposite side. Nothing that you say about conformation showing is any different than is put out by the show people about performance trials. Ever heared of a dog that can only do protection work on their own field, or with an aggitator they know? Ever heard that a Judge was prejudiced for/against a club or type of dog?

The thing that disturbs me about this is that we are willing to sacrifice the breeds. By not participating, being involved in the education of judges and participating the evaluation of the standards we are giving away the breed. THen the people that make the decisions are going to make them based on what they want. Unfortunatley what they often want is to change the breed to suit their fancy. The argument I keep getting in to comes down to "If you don't like the breed, find a breed you do like. Don't try and turn the breed into something it isn't." Often I am a lone voice in the wilderness. I make the same point here "If you don't care what the dog looks like, get a mutt and leave my breeds alone."

Conformation titles are poorly set up for dogs. It should be changed. With some proper work it could be changed. The biggest thing that needs to be done is to break the breeds out of the strangle hold of the AKC. Second, breeders need to breed only dogs that meet the conformation and working standards for the breed. It will hurt. It means that bitch Rott that weighs 50 pounds at 2 years an is 18 inches tall doesn't get bred no matter how well she works. That beautiful bitch that won't bite isn't bred either. It is what will salvage the breeds.

Ok Richard you are right, I agree. I like what you said in the last paragraph. Let me clarify my point. Confirmation does have SOMEthing to do with a dogs physical abilites. That is why I keep saying that a dog must be bred that is within the standard, period. I'm saying the same thing you are. But, when it gets to the point of one good confirmation dog with another good confirmation dog there is no difference other than the animals drive. Or even a dog with poor confirmation, not faulty but ugly, you will not see a difference in the animals performance. It is very tough to judge strenght, stamina, and agility in a confirmation show. When I say poor confirmation I mean cosmetic problems not actual faults that would hurt the dogs ability to move correctly. I guess I got a little too overzealous. There are dogs with bad confirmation that can work, there are also dogs with good confirmation that can't work. The work is more important. I think if we all used a formula similar to the one that I propose then it would change to good working dogs with confirmation to their standards. No faulty dogs, just ones that conform. I don't buy into the ideal pretty animal. A funny tail, legs a little to long or short, head or muzzle a little to big or too small, back straighter or a little more sloped, a little too barrel chested, that is what I'm talking about. Not -F-ed up foot position, bad hips, bad bite, inability to move -fight- or bite well are things that I consider faults.

I'm also not talking about the standards. That is a big pain in the ass. Who has the correctly applied standard? It isn't the AKC. When I mean good confirmation, meaning conforming to the standard I am talking about working line animals and their proper types.

VanCamp,

Ok firslty I will state who I am and my experience so we can put that BS to rest. I am a professional trainer specialising in behavioral problem solving and Personal Protection. I have trained over 2000 dogs in obedience and behavioral problem solving and dont know how many hundreds for Personal Protection from beginning to end. I then also breed Rottweilers for this purpose. I breed for strength of nerve, drive etc as well as a dog that confirms to the standard. I have no afficiation with the AKC (I live in Australia so that would be real hard) and any similar organisation on this side of the world (I am seen by these people as incorrect because I do not follow their line enough and have dogs bred for and trained for work).

However that does not mean I turn a blind eye to the confirmation of an animal nor how it effects the way a dog works and the longevity of how long it can do this work for.

Van Camp Wrote "That is bullshit as well. Either dogs move well or they don't. You are talking about running the dogs around in a little circle. You don't need to see them run around "in show pace" to see how they move. Who cares, I see just how well a dog moves on the trial field." This once again shows your lack of understanding about the show ring and how it judges and tests a dog. For me this is a similararly ignorant arguments and people seeing SchH as nothing more than teaching a dog to attack. Those of us on the inside and in the know of such things know that this is garbage. How many dogs have you put in the ring? Have you ever truly look at the standard that a dog should comply too and then related that to movement and how this makes a difference to a dog? If you do not think that movement makes a difference then that is up to you but why then do we see the differences within the breeds and speed and agility within each breed? If you take a look a greyhounds. So few make the grade as a racer. Firslty they do not have the temperament for it, they may lack drive, they may lack the nerve to take a bump from another dog and still go on, but also to truly be a good racer they must have the confirmation to be fast. They must be the correct size in toe, etc etc etc to be faster than the dog next to them. Can they still run? Sure.

But if we are talking about a dog doing a job or doing it to the point were it excells and weather this edthis dog should be bred off then it must be constucted corrctly. There is a huge difference between doing a job and being so good at it that the dog should be further into the gene pool.

Does this mean that I think it is more important than Drive to the dogs temperament or working ability. Not for one second. But to say it has no influence is plain "FANTASY". Yes certainly drive will pull a dog through but even the highest drive dog will give out at some point. Get two dogs of the same drive level, the one with the better quality of movement will last longer. That is a fact. So when we are looking at breeding and blood lines both must be considered if we are to improve what we are doing.

Does this mean a dog cannot be a good or even great worker without it? Sure it can. But if we get a true understanding of the entire dog then we can do better. If you do not seek improve on your lines every time you breed then what are you breeding for? Understanding confirmation and how it effects movement, stamina, longevity, and overall health is a must for any breeder.

Believing that a dog either passes or fails is a bit short of the mark. Sure a dog can fail a confiramtion test, look at a ZTP. But if we are to improve our dogs we must look far further than simply pass or fail. We must look into movement, structure etc. Breeding dogs to do a job in one thing. Breeding to excell is another. Yes a dog can be said to move well or not but how well and for how long is another.

Van Camp wrote "I just don't agree with everything Mick is saying. Confirmation is important, but working ability really has nothing to do with confirmation, in a #1 show dog, way" I dont know how many times you want me to repeat this. I am not talking about winning. I am talking about a realistic, independant, knowledgeable opinion of the dog. Someone to realistically look at a dog and tell you the dogs strength is XXXX the dogs weakenesses are YYYY and give you somewhere to go from here. The difference between a dog winning and a dog coming in the top ten is usually "COSMETICS". I have no time for this except were is effects the overall performance of the dog. But to argue that it has no inluence is ignorance.

Van Camp Wrote "How many police dogs are out there with show winning confirmation? Come on. . .is anybody feeling me here? " Now once again we get into the difference between a GSD's and dogs such as the Rottweiler. Yes the GSD confirmation standard in its application no longer positively effects the movement of the dog. But the Rottweilers still does, as the GSD's once did. How many poilce dogs still do well?. Go to Germany and look at the police Rottweilers there or the Austrian police kennels etc. They still show correct movement. The Victorian Police here just bred off an Aust. Ch dog. Why? Because he has all they want including confirmation. He should throw some really high drive healthy pups with good nerve etc that should work for a long time. Sure many police dogs would not win in the show ring. Many would not even place highly. But those that do would always do the job better than a similar dog in working drives etc with poorer confirmation. It is matter of putting up with what is around or trying to improve things.

For the record I do not think that breeding such dogs is easy, nor do I think that we should for one second put temperament to the back behind confirmation. To breed working dogs you must first look at temperament, no question. Then to confirmation. An with a limited working gene pool that exists now days it is very difficult to always find a dog with both. But this does not mean for any reason that it is not important or has no influence. It does. We all know that Prey Drive deminishes with fatigue. Reduce the fatigue through correct movement and the dog will go for longer and will be able to do this well into an age were others have given up the game because their bodies have worn out.

Mick.

Mick..very well organized, said and to the point.

Mick Wrote: "For the record I do not think that breeding such dogs is easy, nor do I think that we should for one second put temperament to the back behind confirmation."

Nice post, that's what I think. I just do not buy into the idea that there is much difference between a dog with great confirmation and a dog with good confirmation. They both have structurally sound confirmation, one just has better cosmetic confirmation. That is why I say make confirmation something that is rated as a pass or fail. Good representations of our breeds should pass a breed test, bad reps should fail. Is there much difference between a dog with award winning confirmation and one with just good confirmation? I don't think so. I'm talking no major faults that would hamper working ability, that's all. I think that would most benifit our breeds.

Did you read my A,B,C/pass-fail test? What is wrong with that? You will be producing the best working dogs possible and they will have good confirmation. What more could you ask for?

I just don't think the dog with "great" confirmation will be any more able than the dog with just "good" confirmation. I think that is a myth. How do you explain dogs that work so well with poor confirmation? Or dogs that work all day long with disabilities? I don't think there is much difference in performance. Once you get to that point in judging a dogs appearance then it is silly. Ugly vs. Faulty. We both agree that faulty is bad and will have some effect on the animal.

Hi Barbara, how's it going? Say hi to the gang for me, all 11 of them. :rolleyes: <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

VanCamp,

I have no problem with breeding off a dog of good confirmation and agree that the differnce between a top confirmation dog and one that is good is often just cosmetics and I have little use for such things. But I do favour a sliding scale of judgement if you will, so that we can see if your dog has an overall better build than my dog. We do it all the time with working ability (you dont breed from a dog that only just makes the grade, you breed of the dog that excells at it) I dont see why we should not do the same with confirmation. A dog is a total package, we breed off the best package.

That does not for one second mean that we do not put temperament first, clearly we both think the dog should work above all else but why breed off a dog that is inferior to another if both cut it in the work in a big way.

The other problem we all face is "Kennel Blindness". We have at one time or another probably all thought our dog was better than it really is weather this be work or confirmation. A show is a way the I can get an independant educated opinion regards the overall soundness of my dog (it is for this reason than I only show under international, specialty judge. I seek no titles.) Also those that are looking to use my male or take one of my pups can look at someone else objective veiw point of my dogs. Like I said I am not looking to win but to better the dogs I breed in all areas.

We can move ahead in confirmation without compromising the working ability if we are careful.

Mick.

Hi,

The conformation is important, not the small details like coulor,coat and so on, but the structure of the body is even very important for the workingability of a dog. The problem whit the GSDs breedstandard is that it calls for a trotting dog, therefore these slopping backs and overangulated backlegs, according to the standard this will make the dog to be able to works for hours. This is wrong! How does an animal build for maximal performance look likes? Well, the answear is easy, look at the wild animals. Wolves,dingos, african wilddogs, they all have straight backs and straight legs, there are no "trotters" in the wild! We all know how the american GSD look likes, but even in working GSDs we have dogs whit more angulation and slooping backs that is needed. Many GSDs who works as PSDs have to retire early because of backproblems, the malinois could often work more years in the streets. Why? Because it has a better conformation, straight legs and a straight back, like the GSD of the old times looked like.
The rotties breed standard calls for a powerfull dog, but not to heavy, the dog should still be agile and have endurance. So the rottiestandard describes a functional working dog. The problem is that many showjudges seems to be impressed whit to large and heavy rotts, whit very big heads. It´s to bad that exaggerations often seems to impress showpeople. The workingrottie should weight between 45-52 for a male, this dogs will still looks like rotts, but they are not to heavy to be workindogs. So the structure of a workindog is almost just as important as drives and temperaments, because it´s allows the dogs to stay healthy and work for a longer time than dogs whit not so good structure. There is the big difference, you could have a very good GSD as a PSD, but the structure of the dog will decide how long he will be able to work.

Ok, sounds pretty good to me. I will agree to disagree about how much confirmation has to do with physical ability to perform the work. We all agree that good confirmation is necessary for the working breeds. I just don't see the reason for breeding for anything more than good sound confirmation. I think my pass or fail thing is the answer. A working dog should first pass a group of tests to rate working ability and ensure drive and nerve. Then he should have to pass a confirmation evaluation with a passing (sound confirmation and conforms to standard) rating to be considered as a breeding animal.

Richard, I can't say enough to show you how much I agree with trashing the AKC and rebuilding it, or starting a different orgainizaion. You know that already though.

I agree whole heartidly about AKC being worthless. They are only a necessary evil to prove and keep track of lineage and that is it. Because they, as other stated, only care about looks and if the dog is purebreed. They are well known for cookie cutter dogs with some line breeding they have approved of in the past being as close as 1,1-1,1 (brothers and sisters) of which they have been scrutinized in the past and suppossedly do not approve of now. When the GSD first came about YES there was some severely close line breeding and YES even brother and sister. Hell the genepool of the GSD consists of only about 10 dogs if that so it was necessary to propagate the breed. They also are strongly against MOST, not all working dogs and they are definantly against biting at any level.