I've been doing a bit of surfing this evening - coming on from MM's posts about the German shepherd and how the German version has remained true to type.

I remember my brother's beautiful GSD Lassie, when he was a dog handler in the RAF's MP during the 1950s, and I know from photographs that she looked nothing like the GSDs we have been unfortunate enough to be benched beside at certain shows - Lassie was of German stock (brother was in RAF from 1952-60) and she and BB were stationed at RAF Benson, so fairly close to home in Reading.    Speaking to Al today, he told me to look at the website http://www.eastgermanshepherd.com/sieger.html as Lassie was a daughter/granddaughter of one of the early dogs shown therein.

Just look at the dogs shown in 1949 ....and then look at those in 1990s ........how they have changed!  Not for the better imo!!

And we are talking about Sieger dogs, MM .....

Margot

In contrast, look at this Malinois from 1901:
http://www.hondenaus.com/images/origins/origin_dewet.jpg
and a modern dya one:
http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/picl/display.aspx?id=4ba5060c-a173-41ee-9256-d37a7c2ac699
Seems to be mainly the face mask that is more obvious now, and the dogs are less heavy, but all in all, very much the same dog for 100 years.

>Just look at the dogs shown in 1949 ....and then look at those in 1990s ........how they have changed!  Not for the better imo!!

These were the DDR dogs in east Germany mainly used for guarding and border control.  They are probably the closest thing to real GSD temperament in that they are good family protectors and make excellent police dogs if allowed to mature.  They are also renowned to have the highest percentage of good hips.  It's very hard, if neon impossible to get a true DDR dog in the UK.

They too have changed in conformation over the years however, they are seperate linage to West German show.  They had their own seperate East German Sieger Shows until 1989.

West German Sieger Show (Bundessieger) are the lines in shows today going back to 1899

This site may be of interest

http://www.ddrlegends.com/index.html

MM probably knows more about the DDR lines

Those pictures from the 50's look like the photos of my father's bitch - also from the 50's  she had a wonderful nature but no-one would walk into their house unless invited by a member of the family - she wasn't aggressive, just watchful.

Have been looking at the Bedlington Terrriers

Early 1900s pictures
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lesleycaines/HistoricPhotos?authkey=Gv1sRgCMGW_qbji76V3QE#

1934   http://www.tias.com/stores/doxette/pictures/bd4950a.jpg

1990   http://www.thembtc.co.uk/page.asp?id=57

Main difference is in the style of trimming - and between dogs and Bitches, dogs are more manly and bitches more feminine.

That is the shape of dog that I can remember seeing and admiring when I was younger. Totally agree. I don't admire what I see now.

have seen this on another site I like the dogs up to the 60's after that things seem to have gone pearshaped.

> I like the dogs up to the 60's after that things seem to have gone pearshaped. <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif" width=20 height=10>

No - not pear-shaped - frog-shaped!

I have a picture of a Dogue from 1965 owned by who is known as the father of the breed Prof.R.Triquet.The dog a good example but the dogs in shows nowadays are alot heavier set, shorter legs, shorter muzzles and the head nearly doubled in size, i love the look of the breed of course but i think they are going to follow the route of neos that can no longer do a days work. Which is a shame but its made me look into other breeds.

1965 Todays

Change for the better is a good thing but im not sure if change has been more for the look as health doesnt seem to have improved.

Re: GSD shape.
It seemed to go down a 'strange' path around the late 70's early 80's around the time of  VA1 Canto von Arminius.
This seemed to coincide with the popularity of gaiting contests where the exhibits were admired for their ability to trot at phenomonal speed without breaking into a gallop (as most normal dogs would do).
Although greatly admired for a free flowing trotting gait I feel that this took the breed to an extreme shape desired to outrun all others.
The excessive height at the withers and crouched posture is well suited to this 'flying trot' and the rest is history.
Videos of the most successful show GSDs are generally shown at this extended trot which reveals just what the breeders nowadays are aiming for.

If you want an animal that can run/trot - why not settle for a horse?????

> why not settle for a horse?????

Bit big I suppose :-)

>Bit big I supose

Not really...... ;) :-D

I think you are right, Tooolz,

This is an extract from Fred Lanting -

'In Germany, the respected and powerful Martin brothers (Hermann/Arminius and Walter/Wienerau) put great emphasis on better front angulation but even more on rear drive, so that the dog very powerfully propelled himself forward and slightly upward in order to cover (as the FCI Standard calls for) "much ground with the greatest ease". In America, it was the fad of excessive rear angulation that was used for a similar but exquisitely different purpose, to cover "much ground with the fewest steps". Anyone who remembered watching Asslan von Klämmle win Select-3 two years in a row will know what that technical but important difference is. What resulted from the emphasis was that the Germans neglected toplines, so that as long as the dog was built to push his body up and forward, it didn't seem to matter that the back was shaped like a banana or a boomerang. At the same time, Americans neglected sensible stifle-to-hock length so that many now sag to their knees or stand with the back foot a yard behind the torso, and cannot support a too-long, weak midpiece. There are many other differences as you well know, but I mention this to use it as an example of how a breed can drift with fashion or neglect'.

Fred Lanting

http://www.gsdhelp.info/genetics/germanlines.html

As long as they can gait...

To HuskyGal's  'Not really'

LOL...but can it win a trotting race?

Touche HuskyGal!! :-D

The main difference in American cockers I believe is the amount of coat. In my breed book the Champions from the 40s and 50s didn't have any more coat than my boy, but in today's ring he stands no chance. And my other breed is Cavaliers - I know we have health problems, but looking at the physical dog only, I can definitely say they haven't changed much from the original King Charles of the 16th century. http://www.rubycavalierfinearts.com/image.html?image=1191403185.KingCharlesSpanielsTheCavaliersPets.jpg

Very interesting, from your link Lokis mum, I got this, this shows them all on the same page, and the comparison is amazing, but also frightening.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/siegershow_winners.html

I think conformation peaked around the mid 70's - 80's after which to me it all seems to go horribly wrong. Having said that some of the very early dogs are very impressive and having been Sieger winners, presumably had working ability too, despite not having the hind legs scrunched under a rounded body.

Spender, your explanations and descriptions are superlative.

Here are some historical dalmatians. Toplines weren't great in a lot of them, and decoration has certainly improved.

Loads of pictures of other breeds too. (The German Shepherds are interenting!)

For the life of me I cant find the old black and white photograph of the Bullmastiff that my Nan owned 40/50 years ago,  but it looks nothing like the Bullmastiffs of today, she was much more athletic, had a smaller head, longer nose, and less wrinckles. Infact if you saw her today in the street you wouldnt have known that she was a 'pure bred' Bullmastiff, but in fairness the breed isnt that old its only recently that they started to look the same.

> but it looks nothing like the Bullmastiffs of today, she was much more athletic, had a smaller head, longer nose, and less wrinckles

thats changed even fairly recently, the ones we had as kids (and i'm 24) were less boxy than you see now. i much prefer a bit of a muzzle on my dogs, though Tio is perhaps a touch to far with a head something between a mastiff and a fila- no pronounced stop at all! i don't like a puggy one though.

To be scrupulously fair...there are many examples of pet dogs of today which you could have great difficulty in deciding what breed they are.
My husband often asks me " what breed is that"....I say........"they think it's a SBT"

> I think conformation peaked around the mid 70's - 80's after which to me it all seems to go horribly wrong. Having said that some of the very early dogs are very impressive and having been Sieger winners, presumably had working ability too, despite not having the hind legs scrunched under a rounded body.
>

I had a look at that page too but I thought the early dogs (50's & early 60's) were the most impressive. By the late 60's the sloping back starts to appear and becomes more and more pronounced through the 70's and 80's until, by the early 90's they have become almost hunch backed.

I have Jude Simonds Bernese Mountain Dog book at home and it has some pics of early Bernese that are unlike any you would see today, their look has improved considerably :-). Early pictures of the Gordon Setter on the other hand are recognisable as the same breed :-D

> Loads of pictures of other breeds too.

Yay!! There are Mastiff pics, thanks for sharing the link :)

I've found some historical pics of various breeds, including 'dalmations working the cart under the rear axle' dated 1923 (at the bottom of the page). Also at the bottom of the page is a link to the sites index page, where there are links to other pics of various dog breeds from as early as 1853 (the early ones are etchings though).

Most of the pics have accompanying written descriptions of the breeds, icluding temperment :)

very good loki's mum !!

> My husband often asks me " what breed is that"....I say........"they think it's a SBT"

aaah, don't they indeed :)

Staffords in 1937 http://www.freewebs.com/shindarrahstaffords/1937_stafford_show.jpg

One version of the modern day Stafford here http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/breeders/pics/staffordshire_bull_terrier_4412.jpg

or another version here http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/dog-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/staffordshire-bull-terrier-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/pictures/staffordshire-bull-terrier-0122.jpg

I would like to add I make no comment regarding the individual animals shown in the above links, just to note the difference in 'look' generally since the early days.....

Just goes to show that there may be some truth in what the working folk say - that showing and breeding for showing alone tends to lead to exaggeration in appearance.  I think this is what Jemima was trying to put across.  It has certainly led to health problems in some breeds, but not all by any means, although even those where the exaggerations haven't caused health problems the show dogs of today are sometimes a far cry from those of old.

> that showing and breeding for showing alone tends to lead to exaggeration in appearance.&nbsp;

On the contrary I would think. Looking at the Staffords pictures, and the many examples around where I live, it's easy to see just how unrecognisable (and badly formed anatomically) breeds would be without the checks and balances of a show ring.
The bow fronted orange coated Westies I see around here are amazing and I would bet any money that they are not show bred.The same can be said for many other breeds.
The ills of pedigree dogs cant be laid at the door of all breeders..there are some of us who breed for type as well as health and temperament...I have for 30 years.

>that showing and breeding for showing alone tends to lead to exaggeration in appearance.

Likewise breeding for working ability alone - some of the working types of gundogs look nothing like their forebears of 100 years ago either! Specialising in only one aspect, no matter what it is, will be to the detriment of other aspects. A balance is needed.

i hope that now the 'fit for function' has started that breed will start reverting back.but what about the toys. i have to say the gsd is sdo ugly now, every breed should have a level top line!!

> The ills of pedigree dogs cant be laid at the door of all breeders..there are some of us who breed for type as well as health and temperament...I have for 30 years.

Absolutely - and most ills at those that simply breed two dogs together with little thought.  It entirely understandable that show breeders should be defensive (particularly after that programme), generally speaking they do all they can and that should be commended.  I'm not having a go at show breeders at all,  I'm simply saying that sometimes it's difficult to see the wood for the trees and it's only by stepping back that one can see what exaggerations have occurred.

> i have to say the gsd is sdo ugly now, every breed should have a level top line!!

????? Boxers ? Spinones ?Dobermanns ?

A dog with a level topline that is required to have an extended gait(as the GSD does for sheep working)will fall on forehand if it has a level topline & this means the dog will have to expend more energy in moving defeating the object of having a dog bred to keep sheep/cattle behind a grazing line in pasture with an extended gait. GSD should not"trot"head up whilst working(neither should a BC come to that)as this is an energy sapping movement.

The GSDs that are bred to have the so called level topline(as preferred by the members of the GSD(Alsatian)Club of the UK)definitely cannot gait for prolonged periods of time. They usually have difficulty going twice around the ring let alone keep stock behind a grazing line for hours on end

Don't forget Racing Hounds don't have level toplines aswell.

If EVERY breed has a level topline, they might aswell all have pricked ears, all have a tail that carries level with the back and all be exactly 10:9 in proportions...

Runs and hides :-D

>The GSDs that are bred to have the so called level topline

I thought the GSD standard called for a straight topline, not a level one?

>> that showing and breeding for showing alone tends to lead to exaggeration in appearance.&nbsp;
> On the contrary I would think. Looking at the Staffords pictures, and the many examples around where I live, it's easy to see just how unrecognisable (and badly formed anatomically) breeds would be without the checks and balances of a show ring.
>

I'll have to disagree slightly tooolz, I do think that some show Staffords are showing signs of exaggeration.  (Not that it doesn't happen outside of the show ring too).  Particularly when it comes to the head.  Though you could blame judges too?  If a particular judge likes a 'strong' head, then places that dog, then some breeders tend to stick with that particular feature... and blah blah blah you know how it works :)
Don't get me wrong, lots of breeders are trying to put this right to and get the balance right, as you said, the blame can't all be laid at the door of breeders.
But some aren't, and to my mind, they are the very people who should be trying to lead by example and have balance and type, temperament and health too.

> The GSDs that are bred to have the so called level topline(as preferred by the members of the GSD(Alsatian)Club of the UK)definitely cannot gait for prolonged periods of time. They usually have difficulty going twice around the ring let alone keep stock behind a grazing line for hours on end

How did the pre 1960's Sieger show winners manage then? They all have a straight topline, look much better than today's efforts and presumably managed to perform well enough to be the best of their kind at the time. Has the test changed significantly since the 1960's? If so, was it changed to fit with the 'new look' GSD?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/75576302@N00/

The above Flickr group was started by Karen Booth for flatcoat owners. The ones she posted are mainly American dogs but lots of others have been added since.

>that showing and breeding for showing alone tends to lead to exaggeration in appearance.

>Likewise breeding for working ability alone

So which exaggeration's crop up in appearance that could be detrimental to health in those that breed for working ability alone? 

I agree a balance is needed in modern times but when dogs were bred to work, we got none of the exaggerations we now see in the ring in some breeds

>So which exaggeration's crop up in appearance that could be detrimental to health in those that breed for working ability alone?

For a start, some of the working types of gundog are over-angulated compared to their forebears, which we know can lead to cruciate problems. Some of that could be down to working competitions, where speed is more of a factor compared to 'real' working conditions.

Also some of the working types are 'harder' in temperament - and poor temperament can be detrimental to health and well-being.

Ah....I see what you mean.  It's a shame we couldn't take competition out of dog breeding...

> For a start, some of the working types of gundog are over-angulated compared to their forebears, which we know can lead to cruciate problems. Some of that could be down to working competitions, where speed is more of a factor compared to 'real' working conditions.

Putting competitive working aside, dogs that are unsound tend not to be bred from (I'm not saying that sound, unhealthchecked ones don't).  Too much time and effort goes into training a dog that

By comparison, the dogs in the showring have not only lost the natural abilities of a working dog, but they are too heavily built and overdone to cope with a days work.  There are moderate types in both camps, but gundogs are one of the few breeds where it is possible to find them in action doing what they were supposed to do and therefore be able to make a judgement.

To be honest, looking at old photographs, todays working gundogs bear far more resemblance to those of 100 years ago than those in the ring today.  A working dog may not look as heavy as a showdog, but can still meet the breed standard and plenty do.  The difference is in the interpretation of the breed standard and this is where the fashionable aspect affects the type of dog in the ring.

> where speed is more of a factor compared to 'real' working conditions.

Just to add that speed does not have the importance in competitions that some people assume and in fact can hinder a dog.

>but can still meet the breed standard and plenty do.  The difference is in the interpretation of the breed standard and this is where the fashionable aspect affects the type of dog in the ring.

I Welsh Springer fits the Irish red & White Setter Breed standard!  Afew people got together for fun and went though and interpreted the standard to fit the dog they wanted it too.  But the two breeds are compleatly different.

> Afew people got together for fun and went though and interpreted the standard to fit the dog they wanted it too.

Exactly - the breed standard is basically a very loose set of guidelines - in order to have a precise blueprint it would require far more detail.  What does well in the show ring is influenced as much by current trends and what the judges like to see as it is by the breed standard.  It is easy to see how these exaggerations can occur over a period of time.  They didn't happen overnight, but gradually - sometimes it's difficult to see the wood for the trees.

> It's a shame we couldn't take competition out of dog breeding...

If that were so who would be left to breed dogs?
Who would be prepared to breed at a loss, import new blood, health test despite large costs and .....most importantly not breed dogs as a comodity?
If the breeder wasn't breeding to keep one themselves, then they would be breeding commercially for their own gain...surely?
The whole emphasis would be shifted to making puppies and why waste time and money on travelling hundreds of miles to use the right dog if you weren't doing so to keep a puppy to show/work?
Sounds like a wholesale turn over to BYB.

>Who would be prepared to breed at a loss, import new blood, health test despite large costs and .....most importantly not breed dogs as a commodity?

Breeders that wish to improve their chosen breed.  There are those that import/breed for that one sole reason - to improve the breed in the UK, not win ribbons and trophies.  They are around and they are not BYB. 

But why would you want to improve a breed if you cann't compete?  All dogs will be pets, so something out the rescues would do.  To gain anything in anything you need to have a competitive element, careers are competitive, car sales are competitive etc.  Without that competitive element there would be....well nothing to achive!

> Breeders that wish to improve their chosen breed.

But who would know?

Not everyone sees it that way...

If there was nothing but competition dogs then heaven help us because in our breed, the show lines are so genetically saturated, it's frightening, not to mention health issues and hind quarter movement. 

In working lines, there is high drive, hard dogs which may not be necessarily happy to live as a pet.  Some can, it just doesn't follow that way for them all. 

Then there is the 'middle of the road' guys without extremes or exaggeration, undergo all the health tests, avoid genetic saturation, outcross/ line breed but they do not show or compete with their dogs. 

Their dogs may not have the hardness or high drive for the dedicated working fraternity or the shape/black/gold colour needed for the show ring. 

That does not make them BYB.

If everyone bred the same dogs to the same lines with no one doing any different - where do you think the breed would end up?

I have a breeder friend, been in the breed for 35 years, very knowledgeable, she no longer breeds, shows or works her dogs.  She mentors and imports stud dogs from Germany to improve the breed in the UK.  Why else should she do that?

I appreciate that every breed is different however, we might be glad of healthy pet lines someday and thankful that someone, somewhere has preserved them.  

> have a breeder friend, been in the breed for 35 years, very knowledgeable, she no longer breeds, shows or works her dogs.&nbsp; She mentors and imports stud dogs from Germany to improve the breed in the UK.&nbsp; Why else should she do that?

The important part of that being she used to be more active otherwise where would her love for the breed and the knowledge needed to maintain or improve it come from.

But wouldn't you then end up just breeding for the pet market?
If I fullfilled every request I got for a puppy, moderate, unexagerated and from health tested parents, I would be involved in quite a little cottage industry.
I dont because 1) I dont want to keep a lot of dogs and 2) only breeding when I want something to show self-limits my output 3) Enough suitable owners dont present themselves.

The retired mentor will undoubtably have a well established idea of her own checks and balances gained from a time when she saw lots of GSDs gathered together either to show or to work.

Moderates shouldn't leave the showring to fashions or fads but keep bringing out typy moderate healthy dogs for all to see...what goes round comes round as they say :-)

Showing doesn't require that healthy pets cannot be the byproduct.
If you dont compare, quality control or in some way assess your stock how do you know you're not producing a Galapagos type of animal..totally isolated and off at a tangent ie a new breed in the making?

I must just add that I do realise that GSDs are quite unique in the rapid and extraordinary change which has occurred within the breed - it must be like trying to hold back the tide. Money, status and percieved power can have such a detrimental effect on any situation so I dont envy you having such people taking your breed in their own direction :-(

>It's a shame we couldn't take competition out of dog breeding.

It's already been done :( 

Every day in Britain pups are born, raised and sold without their parents ever having seen a show/competition of any kind.   They rarely have any breed specific health tests, they don't necessarily look like the breed they are supposed to, they aren't necessarily the right height and weight.  They don't necessarily have the correct temperament, but puppy buyers all over Britain buy them because they are readily available.  

They are in the majority of pups bred in Britain already :(

Are you saying that responsible breeders should breed the same way??

Can't tell you how many Staffordshire Terrier type dogs I see around here with Queen Anne legs - both front and back :( :( and they are usually the heavy 'pig' type dogs too - not lightweight athletic ones:( :(