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 Bundessiegerprufungen (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
Bundessiegerprufung 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
körung events are laudable. It is wrong and damaging to the breed if dogs are given false
top ratings at shows, körung events and exams. This will in no way justify a mating! May
I, in this context, recall the fact that the VORZUGLICH (excellent) rating must only be
given to dogs that strictly meet the standard, display self-confidence and poise, and are
indifferent to shooting noise.
The score SEHR GUT (very good) must only be
applied to dogs that meet the requirements for VORZOGLICH, 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 Kör 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 Kör class, 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.
Written by Albert Platz...Körmeister...Zwinger v Adeloga
:
+44 (0)1905 830900 -
email: