The title of this article stems
from a discussion list or website group in the U.K. with the name “Let’s
Talk Breeding”. One of its subscribers said she couldn’t “sit by and listen
to foolishness without speaking up.” While the forum is admirably open-ended,
“designed to allow all sides of an issue to be voiced”, this gives much
opportunity for promulgation of ignorance, scapegoat weirdness, incredible
claims, unscientific conclusions, and the like. There is always this difficulty
of finding our ways between the extremes of total libertarianism (anarchy?)
and rigid governmental type control. Think of a journey down a fairly broad
valley with those extremes being the mountains on both sides. Either you
allow all sorts of crazies to speak as loudly as reasoned voices (one mountain
range) or you disallow any voicing of opinion other than the “party line”
(the other mountain range). The latter is how communist and the equally
murderous African/Islamic/Latin/third-world regimes have operated all these
many years and only a few of these are crumbling, others rising anew from
the lava core of human nature. In this valley, there are many changes of
scenery and degrees of slope toward one or the other range.
There are many in this valley who attempt to play the role of peacemaker,
and say that “the only way for anyone to make an educated decision is by
understanding or at least being aware of the opposing views”. But they (we)
often have rocks hurled at them from those further up both slopes. Sometimes
the arguments get downright silly and based on woeful ignorance of canine
psychology, which is both my subject and forte in this instance. For example,
in the UK, there is currently raging a tempest in a teapot over whether
dogs should be crated. Ever. Never, say some. They cry that “the idea of
crates [is] evil, spaying/neutering unhealthy, and that anyone who uses
any type of force other than a cootchie-coo is inhumane”. Of course, many
of us have seen abusive conditions in which dogs spend almost all of their
lives in crates, and I would side with the activists complaining about that,
but the vast majority of dog people using crates (the airlines call them
“kennels”) do so wisely and effectively. Crates help train puppies in housebreaking,
chewing, and other mischievous activities they would otherwise get into when
you are busy with something else. Crates give dogs a “safe place” just like
the caves their ancestors used to keep from being trampled on or molested
while they nap. Crates keep a dog from being bounced around in a car when
you have to brake or turn suddenly. They enable you to take more than one
dog with you to training, visiting, and other activities and are infinitely
safer than tying the dog up to a tree or lamppost while you exercise or compete
with the other dog. The problem is that too many who are soft in the heart
are also a little soft in the head, and tend to anthropomorphize excessively,
likening a crate to being in some medieval, dank, rat infested sewer of
a dungeon.
One apparent voice of reason reportedly has been banned from one UK site
due to “calmly, logically and with research refuting statements that are
either erroneous, misleading or have no basis.” I have experienced the same
exile or being placed on “moderation” (probation) on one or two e-mail discussion
groups that I had thought and hoped were going to be open to differences
of opinion, even if slightly strongly worded. I used to be very impatient,
but in my 50s I went through a mellow stage. Now, after continually hearing
the same foolishness for far too long, I am growing impatient again. Sometimes
I feel like saying “Don’t these dummies want to listen or learn?” I believe
that is truly the case. In this post literary age, when TV and Internet
and fast foods and DINKS (double-income-no-kids --- or at least no parental
supervision of same) have made instant gratification a way of life in even
the flood of information we swim in, people have largely abandoned both logic
and listening. When was the last time you heard of a school teaching classes
in logic? When was the last time you got the impression in a supposed conversation
that the other person was actually listening to you and your ideas, rather
than just waiting for an opportunity to speak?
The other topics that, strangely, have been occupying the worry time
of Brits and other Europeans are not world famine or peace, but tail docking
and the pros and cons of neutering/spaying. One of my UK correspondents (not
corespondents!) said that when it was mentioned in some communiqués
that puppies and kittens are spayed at eight weeks by some U.S. vets, “there
was an outcry that would make you think the world was ending.” Such a reaction
is very curious to those of us living in the land of convenience foods and
instant gratification, especially coming from a U.K. citizenry that believes
docking tails is cruel and anything more than an instant of pain. I don’t
hunt with docked dogs, but I have seen many a litter docked, and handled
dogs for people who’ve reported repeated injury to some breeds’ undocked tails.
I’m not getting into the argument of how damaging it can be to leave the
tail on, but I know what I have seen, and the pups that have their tails cut
off whether by hatchet, scalpel, or thumbnail (I’ve seen all three!) are
no worse off right away or throughout life than dogs that step on a thorn
that is pulled out right away. Even if I did not live in rural Alabama, where
hunting is a way of life for many and is a needed way to keep certain wildlife
from populating themselves into starvation or environmental disaster, I
could not go along with those who decry docking for reasons of suffering
— it’s a red herring, it’s a non-issue. But the extremists want to ban all
hunting with dogs everywhere, even to the point of fines “over there” if
your dog catches a rabbit or squirrel. Dogs no longer can work as they were
meant to do, if such draconian measures are adopted. And they are. Unfortunately,
most politicians are not dog owners and I include the few who allow their
wives and kids to have a little foo-foo “dog” on their laps, yet politicians
love to make laws that infringe on the lives of others. That’s the definition
of the word politics: power, over other people. It’s also the definition of
tyranny.
In the U.S., another storm that is always roiling is between the “show
lines” and the “working lines” in what is supposed to be the same breed.
In the U.K., Australia, and one or two other countries, “schutzhund” is
a dirty word, but in Germany, the U.S., and the rest of the world, it is
a major facet of both the dog sport and the proofing of character. Unfortunately,
the dichotomy persists despite the efforts of many to bring the two camps
together. In the U.S. we have a vociferous and active schutzhund movement
domineered by what I call the “scores-only” mentality. It doesn’t matter
greatly to them if the dog looks like a Malinois, coyote, Dutch Shepherd,
wolf, or GSD; only how well it performs on the schutzhund fields is important.
On the other extreme is the “show-only” crowd, most of whom are concentrated
in the far-out, non-mainstream GSDCA. For the benefit of my overseas readers,
I must interject an explanation of these two particular groups before continuing.
In the U.S., there are two breed clubs purporting to speak for the breed.
Both are members of the W.U.S.V. The voting member unfortunately (by dint
of negligence on the part of the rival club) is the GSD Club of America,
which is a member club of AKC. The AKC in turn has a “working relationship”
with FCI, similar to that of the UK’s “The Kennel Club”. The other breed
club is United Schutzhund Clubs of America, which as the name implies, started
as a sports club; it held its first conformation Sieger Show in 1990, if
I remember rightly. They prefer the acronym USA, although the SV refers to
them as USCA. The GSDCA does not adhere to or even acknowledge the international
(WUSV) breed standard, while USA follows in almost every footstep taken
by the SV, in all matters. It does not have any relationship with FCI (the
FCI works with only one national club per country, as if all countries were
socialist in which government “ownership”, control, or sanctions is necessary
for validity). As a result, GSDCA leadership, or should I say lack thereof,
has caused a noticeable shift in average phenotype in “AKC-Shepherds” away
from the international look, the dog that is seen almost everywhere else
in the world. This slide started in the late-1960s, when we still had many
great looking but “standard” examples of the breed, but also were seeing
many unrepresentative examples being given easy championships (and thus
breeding status) at shows judged by an AKC coterie of unknowledgeable judges;
these were selected from the ranks of Poodle and Bulldog breeders and others
who knew how to read the Standard and pass a written test. Today, the stereotypical
AKC Shepherd is anything from a last-place finisher to a laughing stock when
it is seen competing in international-type shows under knowledgeable, apprenticeship
trained judges.
Anyway, a current flap in USA/USCA circles is over whether a person should
be permitted to breed according to his knowledge and experience, or meet
certain artificial prerequisites laid out by “the breed police” (most of
whom have an abysmal lack of experience in anything other than training a
dog or two toward a schutzhund title). A controversy on at least one e-mail
“list” has been over some members of their community breeding dogs that are
untitled (by which is meant the schutzhund affix). Some of the novice upstarts
have gotten all bent out of shape because a few more experienced people have
occasionally bred a bitch or dog without the SchH title. Yet some of them
would have no objection to breeding a dog that could only place in the last
third or tenth, etc., of its conformation class, as long as it had those
magic letters after its name. Even if it could only manage a Koerklasse-2.
As long as it had good scores in its trials, especially the bitework part.
I know of older, well versed breeders who are much more qualified and able
to make good decisions regarding pairings, and who are castigated for using
dogs that would certainly be able to earn those titles, but for good enough
reasons have not. Some owners feel the rigors of training late at night in
all kinds of weather are not worth the effort and would not tell them anything
more about their dogs than they can see in daily life. Some of us live too
far away from training clubs (I know of some who drive 4 hours one way to
go to training!) and others do not have a decent protection phase “helper”
to work with. But just let a wealthier “scores-only” compatriot send his
dog to Germany (whether for minimal training and a “midnight trial” or not),
and that dog is accepted by this group!
My argument with the fringe element in the working dog community is based
on the fact that I do train the dogs I keep, but I am not averse to using
an untitled dog if it contributes to the breed and my program. I also make
sure they have great character, hips, breed surveys, and anatomy. The only
person I have to prove anything to is myself. I know what I see, am a darned
good dog psychologist and trainer, and a consultant in canine behaviour.
Nobody is forced to buy my occasional puppies, but those who do have their
own option as to titling. Titles are but tools and proofs, but preserving
the breed is done by preserving the best genes and combining them wisely.
The titles are merely clothing and badges worn by the genes. I use them,
but I do not put them above the dog's inherent qualities. The important thing
is the essence of the dog: the genes, not the uniform, medals, ribbons,
accessibility to helpers and training clubs, or other paraphernalia. I get
pleasure out of producing good representatives of the breed. Any that I
sell and claim to be good schutzhund potentials will indeed be so. Whether
my co-owners or customers actually put the titles on them is secondary. Nice,
but not necessary. Titles do not change the dog. Repeat: titles do not change
what is in the dog's character or genes. I have competed & trained intensively
since 1966, and have won in conformation with clients' dogs that never should
have won because of character or other flaws, and I likewise have seen innumerable
working titled dogs that should never be in the gene pool. I know how to
preserve the breed, and it isn't by using those fakes.
Fred Lanting
All Things Canine -- consulting division, Willow Wood Services Phone:
256-498-3319 Fax: 256-498-3311
The Total German Shepherd Dog by Fred Lanting This is the expanded and
enlarged second edition, a "must" for every true GSD lover. It is an excellent
alternative to the "genetic history" by Willis, but less technical and
therefore suitable for the novice, yet very detailed to be indispensable
for the reputable GSD breeder. Chapters include: History and Origins, Modern
Bloodlines, The Standard, Anatomy, The German Shepherd in Motion, Shows,
Showing, and Training, The Winners, Nutrition and Feeding, General Care
and Information, Health and First Aid, Parasites and Immunity, Diseases
and Disorders, The Geriatric German Shepherd, Breeding, Basics of Genetics,
Reproduction, Whelping, The First Three Weeks, Four to Twelve Weeks, Trouble-shooting
Guide.
Fred Lanting 
