|
Nearly a century ago, von
Stephanitz began developing the breeding guidelines for the GSD, or as one
might say today, he "created" them.
He was intrigued by the untiring
work of guard dogs, and driven by the desire to use them in service to
mankind. The founding father of the breed knew that this was possible due
to the dog’s anatomy which was plain and simply based on physical laws -
in particular the law of leverage. The body served a useful purpose and
warranted the often-cited "economy of power", the efficient and complete
work process. This useful anatomy is crowned by a harmonious physical
structure, without any extremes and with all parts in right relation to
each other. These were, at the time, visionary idea according to which
zealous and hardworking breeders developed the most popular working dog.
We are proud of the fact that in only two man-generations we now have a
dog whose performance and structural characteristics are the result of
continuous improvement efforts. Only as a combined force can the physical
and characteristic qualities, as stipulated in the racial identification
standard, lead to proper breeding results and thus keep the associated
spirit alive. Neglecting either one of these two "parts of the entity"
would without a doubt lead to the breeds degeneration.
The structural
details of our German Shepherd Dog have, from a technical point of view,
been designed to meet the requirements of optimal performance and have
elevated him to a special status among the working dog population. One
might say, his well-built physical structure has led to a particular,
exclusive beauty ideal that is unaffected by fashion trends or even forced
breeding practices. The physical and performance related qualities can
only become effective within the framework of an interacting
constellation. Breathtaking perfection is only realised in a dog that
meets the standard in terms of characteristic faultlessness, temperament
and expression.
This in turn leads to the endeavour to admit only
anatomically high-classed dogs to reputable shows. Never before were we
closer to this ideal than at the present time: just look at the
high-placed offspring of equally high-placed show dogs. This fact and the
clearly stated goal of our association’s breeding standard must never be
questioned. It would in fact distort Stephanitz’s ideas and by doing so
cause potential damage to all concerned.
We must be on our guard not to
re-evaluate a complex given standard on the grounds of subjective
considerations. It never ceases to amaze me that in spite of only one
breed standard, there is support for two breeding goals. One boldly speaks
of differing beauty and the other boldly speaks of performance ideals and
even their incompatibility with one another. Such statements obviously
lack scientific support. What they do, however, is cause novice members to
feel insecure. Some people may even be led to believe that, plainly
spoken, "a beautiful dog is unable to perform".
Such views are simply
wrong, as documented by excellent statistical data of the
Bundessiegerprűfungen (SCHELD). It is not really my place to comment in
this context on genetic engineering. May that topic remain the scientists’
realm. I am only attempting to offer you sound advice as to breeding and
performance, without the usual foreign terminology, but rather based on
common sense and experience. Do allow me to state the
following:
According to the teaching of RABER, a mating may lead to '2
to the power of 39' possible combinations of chromosomes. This means a
twelve-digit number of several billions that would hardly ever be
considered in normal breeding practices. It seems interesting to me that
not even the genetic factors of a superb male litter mate can guarantee
success, because sibling are likely to be very different from each other,
not only in appearance but in genetic makeup as well.
Consequently,
only 20 -40% of all breeding efforts are ultimately successful, the rest
just "evaporates" (BRAUNING). That thought will forever remain wishful
thinking.
Of course, the inheriting abilities of the animals in
question are important; any outstanding accumulation of favourable or less
favourable characteristics must be taken into consideration. However,
there is always the exception to the rule, for an even spread of defects
across the entire population seems to be quite normal. Therefore, there
may be genetic factors (e.g. size, hip dysplasia, ear deformations etc.)
that may indeed be difficult to eliminate. The bearers of these
characteristics may after all be good genetic inheritors. Their progeny,
however, must always be judged in the light of the maternal or paternal
flaws. To say it clearly: a high-placed descendant must not display the
shortcomings of his ancestors. Naturally, one should not settle for any
bad characteristics when shopping for good ones. This is true for
anatomical as well as character traits. By the same token, mating winners
of a Bundessiegerprűfung or Siegerhauptzuchtschau are absolutely no
guarantee to bring forth "winners".
From the sociological point of
view, the dog is a product of inheritance and environment which is evident
in particular areas of development. However, this is not what we want to
discuss in this article. It follows that the usability of the GSD as a
working dog must be ensured throughout the entire breeding spectrum. Never
must there be two differing blood lines ("the beauties and the beasts")
The founder of the breed emphasised "high breeding" as an ideal, an
inspiration to achieve "perfection through breeding". Nowadays, however,"
high breeding" is frequently equated with "lacking ability to perform"
whereas he had used that expression to describe the very best of the dogs,
the ideals which the majority would in due course, by selective breeding,
follow suit. This requires responsible, continual selection. It is the
only way to ensure that character and anatomy, alone and together, remain
determining factors for working dog breeding. "GSD breeding is working dog
breeding, or else it is not GSD breeding" (STEPHANITZ).
Understandably,
various interest groups have formed within the wide range of possible uses
with the GSD. They must by all means do justice to the dog, the breed, and
the breeding and performance standards to which the breeders are tied.
Part of that is having the dogs which are used for breeding, judged in all
required performance and show events. This quite inevitable leads to a
shift in interest and attendance. For example, do handlers whose main
interest lies in performance and thus the necessity for continuous
advancement, find less time to train their dogs for show events. Of course
this works the other way around for show visitors. Both groups, as
breeders or buyers of young puppies, strive to use the very top dogs for
their particular area of interest, and both are frequently disappointed by
the lack of due consideration given to them and their dogs. Is there a
solution? I would think so: Körmeister, breeding judge and performance
judge must closely co-operate to that end. Stephanitz warns of "damaging
misjudging" and this is true in both performance and show areas. It takes
a lot of subtle intuition and a thorough feel for the dog as a whole. A
performance judge cannot disregard the standard, a fact that a dog handler
with a main interest in show must accept. It may well be that his show dog
scores low in a performance event.
The consequences at exams, shows and
Kőrung events are laudable. It is wrong and damaging to the breed if dogs
are given false top ratings at shows, Kőrung events and exams. This will
in no way justify a mating! May I, in this context, recall the fact that
the VORZűGLICH (excellent) rating must only be given to dogs that strictly
meet the standard, display self-confidence and poise, and are indifferent
to gunshot noise.
The score SEHR GUT (very good) must only be applied
to dogs that meet the requirements for VORZűGLICH, but display slight
structural deviations. This includes dogs falling short of or exceeding
the standard height by one centimetre.
GUT (good) is applicable to dogs
that meet the standard but display easily recognisable structural
deficiencies.
It may be subjectively understandable when points and
ratings are adjusted to one’s advantage. But it is simply wrong to try to
use that process to document that a dog is a high-performing and
anatomically superb animal when in reality he is not. The associated
members must not be misled by an accommodating grading system.
Unfortunately the Kцr Class Two grading will always put the dog at a
disadvantage even through he may be a well-suited breeding partner due to
high "general appearance" scores, i.e., performance and structure. It
might be advisable to consider introduction of one single Kőrklass, as is
done in working dog breeding, with special provisions for the Schutzhund
(protection dog) requirements. The criteria as stipulated in the standard
must be met without any display of favouritism on the judge’s part. If it
is not, the standard only suffers. This indeed requires responsible
co-operation. Both show and performance groups must take a more conscious
and willing approach to working together, particularly in light of the
fact that the association's backbone is constituted by members with
average breeding and performance results. Top performers are for example,
to motivate others, but they are not the guarantors of the
association!
Fortunately, there is an increasing awareness in the
performance sector that in order to attain top ratings, the structure and
performance-related standard specifics are indeed to be striven for more
carefully.
Corresponding conclusions should be drawn in the show sector
as well. This includes making top-rated males available for breeding with
females that are strong in performance.
A performance man will hardly
get excited over a dog displaying over or near over angulation, which is
usually accompanied by weak hock joints, nor will he fancy an over-sized
dog. Without a doubt, many members have lost their sense of direction in
that respect. We must not yield to the apparent demand for over-size, a
trend that is not at all appreciated by performance people, for "giants
are never skilful" (STEPHANITZ). To my knowledge, we never had a
performance winner with height bordering on the upper limit. This is
certainly even more true for agility. It is important to note that with an
increase in body size, the weight increases far more than the power
effective motion (disharmony of muscle proportion). Overweight builds up
dead weight, thus restricting the dog’s basic speed and possibly leading
to hip dysplasia and a faster wearing-out of the dog in general. any
considerations as to size must be based on the standard, for adhering to a
medium size is of uttermost importance in view of performance ability.
Size and proportions are determined by measuring as well as a visual
assessment. Only that way do we achieve a harmonious, medium-sized total
appearance that ensures good working abilities.
May my above thoughts
lead to fruitful discussions and ultimately unite both interest groups in
their common roots and a meaningful future of togetherness. This requires
conforming to the standard, for its statements as to structure and
character are indispensable for the breeding and use of our GSD as a
working dog. Applying the standard too liberally in both sectors would be
at the expense of the breed, and consequently endanger the common goals of
the association.
|