I see the dog in front of me not just a pedigree. All hockey players are not from Canada and not all Mexicans can do landscaping. Let the dog be what he/she wants to be by nature and personality and don't linger too long on who Grandma and Grandpa were.

The shows were like the German style shows that go on still today. They weren't working trials.

I'll find the quote. It's in the first chapter somewhere. He says he doesn't like keeping or tending to the dogs.

 Quote: Charles Finley

I see the dog in front of me not just a pedigree. All hockey players are not from Canada and not all Mexicans can do landscaping. Let the dog be what he/she wants to be by nature and personality and don't linger too long on who Grandma and Grandpa were.

Charles, no one is disagreeing with that. We all see the dogs in front of us. No one said it was an absolute that show dogs can only show and all working dogs are police dogs. We said that bloodlines offer certain characteristics that will help you choose a dog or puppy for the task required.

You're only hearing (or reading) what you want and are ignoring the rest.

I would be the perfect example of looking at the dog in front of me. My bitch is out of untitled dogs. I chose working lines to increase my chances of a biting dog but I looked at her, her parents and her siblings without giving a thought to the pedigree after that.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

The shows were like the German style shows that go on still today. They weren't working trials.

I'll find the quote. It's in the first chapter somewhere. He says he doesn't like keeping or tending to the dogs.

From what I have read, the old style "exhibitions" (they didn't call them "shows") were demonstrations of the dogs abilities to perform tasks as well as conformation displays. Stephanitz definitely leaned towards work as being more important than looks. This is from chapter 5 of his book:

 Quote:

It is not to be doubted for a minute that emphasis on Exhibition requirements is a danger to our breed, when the proper education of the dog in question is overlooked. Efficiency for work must count for more with the shepherd dog breeder than the honours of the Show Ring.

Also:

 Quote:

We have already agreed that our shepherd dog is a service dog, and that he must only be bred as a service dog. He must therefore, and the points of the race equally demand this, only be judged as a service dog. With service dogs, suitability ranks higher than beauty: indeed their real beauty and their only nobility (for their aristocracy is one of service) consist in their complete adaptability in the arrangement, the balancing and the coalescence of each and every part.

I've never heard anything about the dogs performing tasks at the exhibitions. Stephanitz himself went to a dog show and bought his first dog. He never worked his own dogs. And with a many of his rank in early Germany I highly doubt he even fed his own dogs.

The entire chapter 5 of In Word and Picture is about judging conformation. Stephanitz says that our dogs are not bred for color, then goes on to talk about why he only likes and allows certain colors...

He is already concerned with build and type, none of which really contribute to the dogs' working ability. Being east-west is a fault in almost all breeds. But look at all of the dogs capable of being police dogs, military dogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, etc. I guarantee you the best workers are all east-west. Look at the SV and even the majority of the working breeders now, they're still running around circles trying to get their V ratings and their Korungs. For what? Are we concerned with working ability or looks? You tell me.

That's part of why I chose my dog's breeder. She doesn't play the German Shepherd games

Obviously you evaluate the dog you have in front of you...no one is arguing otherwise....


but if you want a dog who can work that you're buying completely unseen/untested a complete crapshoot (maybe a puppy for example) are you going to roll the dice on a dog with a pedigree filled with showline dogs with a bunch of wins in conformation or one with working line dog with parents/grandparents/etc who were police dogs or have working titles....similar comparison....I want a dog who can help me with some sheep....am I going to get a well bred hound dog or a shepherding breed? There's a guy in vermont who's foxhound helps him bring his sheep (quite impressively actually)...that does not mean I'm going to get a foxhound hoping it wants to herd sheep...

same with the people who have couch potato border collies...some border collies are lazy, but you do not get a border collie expecting it to be a couch potato....some labs to schutzhund....but you do not buy a lab expecting it to be able to do schutzhund....you do not buy a pug as your hiking partner....but there are pugs out there who can and will hike with you for miles...

 Quote: Katie Finlay

The entire chapter 5 of In Word and Picture is about judging conformation.

No, it is about "Judging the Shepherd Dog", just as the chapter is titled. It is most certainly not just about judging conformation.

 Quote:

The judging of the dog should throw light on his external features, his physical fitness for work and for breeding, and at the same time, should inform us about the external recognisable characteristics of the foundations of his nature, and in certain circumstances, of his accomplishments.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

Stephanitz says that our dogs are not bred for color, then goes on to talk about why he only likes and allows certain colors...

I have found many instances where he discusses varying colors within the breed, but no where that he states what colors he "allows". I do know he reinforces his statements that "we do not breed for colour" over and over again.

 Quote:

The coloring of the dog has no significance whatever for service; our shepherd dog accordingly is not bred for color. Coloring therefore is only a fad of the amateur and as such is often liable to changes of whim.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

Look at the SV and even the majority of the working breeders now, they're still running around circles trying to get their V ratings and their Korungs. For what? Are we concerned with working ability or looks? You tell me.

That's part of why I chose my dog's breeder. She doesn't play the German Shepherd games

No doubt that there are many GSD breeders out there today who are more concerned about looks and titles from the ring than the dogs working ability. These are the types of breeders that Captain von Stephanitz spent so much time in his book warning us about. It sounds like you found a great breeder who adheres to that and has bred a great working dog for you and many others!

Mr Finley, aside form the angualtion question you've not answered yet, just what is your experience in working alongside both show line and working line?
I've seen and trained next to both in Schutzund clubs and Schutzhund competitions so I'm not just "looking at the dog in front of me". The show line dogs, as a rule, don't hold a candle to the working line dogs. The jumps, in particular are sad to watch when the show line dog make the effort. As mentioned before, the protection phases in the SV Seiger show line dogs is sad. Owners on the side line actually praying their dogs engage the helper. They STILL get a pronounced rating when they don't. At the last two SV Seigers I watched there were a total of 150- 160 dogs entered. There were maybe 5-6 that I would consider taking home. the rest were pathetic in the very simple protection routines required at the SV Seiger show. I also recognized some very high level trial helpers at these shows do very low level trial helper work just to keep from chasing half the dogs off the field.
Again these are my own personel observations based on much more then "the dog in front of me". I could look at some working line dogs "in front of me and still see subpar dogs just as you see what you see when looking at "the dog in front of you". That will never change the facts that many people can't see " the dog in front of them" because of bias, jelousy, kennel blindness, etc.
Go see more then just what interests you in the GSD and open your eyes a bit.

Where does he talk about how the working ability was judged? He only talks about how conformation was judged and how correct conformation assumes proper working condition.

The fact still remains that he never worked any of his dogs. I can't rely on someone who has never worked a dog to judge my dogs or decide what characteristics are needed for the work.

There were a lot of disqualifying physical conditions Stephanitz decided on - no white coats and no long coats, for example.

I have owned individual dogs of both "so called lines" and both were excellent dogs. I see no reason to classify dogs according to some human politics. Black men can play hockey and Mexicans can do accounting.