> I don't care if a GSD can work; I only care that it's beautiful (healthy, too!) and that it can be a mentally-sound, loving companion. What is with some people's concern with whether dogs can still work? We don't need dogs to perform the same tasks that we used to need them to do!

Ermm... yes we do!

Why do you think the USA police and military aren't using showline GSDs?
And are instead importing Malinois and GSDs from Europe?
When the exact same breed COULD do the job only a few decades ago?
There's no mystique there - the show type have morphed into something that simply can't work any more...

> God forbid we ever ban cropping and docking in the U.S. because annoying animal lovers think it's not nice to do that to poor wittle doggies!

Gotta laugh,  you've hit the nail on the head. No point in lecturing us on "living works of art"  when we outlawed ear cropping a century ago and now don't allow docking.

You go off and do your own thing, and we'll do ours... in line with many other countries in the world who have also outlawed these cosmetic mutilations. The world is changing, and if you want to sit on your prickly laurels in your own amerocentric bubble, that's fine, but don't expect anyone in the english speaking world to agree with you. You'd get an even harder time on Scandinavian and Dutch dog websites, if you could speak the language - their welfare standards are even higher than the UK's in some areas. If you were fluent in those languages, vilified wouldn't cover it.

Oh well, as long as cropping and docking remains legal in the U.S. while I'm alive, I'll be happy. I don't see any reason to get upset over the procedures; the dogs who've had them done don't seem any different psychologically than the dogs who are natural. Watch videos online to see for yourselves. It doesn't harm the dogs any more than spaying and neutering does, so what exactly is there to object to? It's just that too many people these days humanize dogs. These people don't think it's right to subject another living thing to a procedure they can't consent to. Well, they are JUST dogs, NOT people, therefore they are not entitled to the same rights and treatment. Let me say this again: Cropping and docking is no more traumatizing than spaying and neutering! We who are pro-cropping and docking are not heartless monsters, so don't label us as such!

Oh well, as long as cropping and docking remains legal in the U.S. while I'm alive, I'll be happy. I don't see any reason to get upset over the procedures; the dogs who've had them done don't seem any different psychologically than the dogs who are natural. Watch videos online to see for yourselves. It doesn't harm the dogs any more than spaying and neutering does, so what exactly is there to object to? It's just that too many people these days humanize dogs. These people don't think it's right to subject another living thing to a procedure they can't consent to. Well, they are JUST dogs, NOT people, therefore they are not entitled to the same rights and treatment. Let me say this again: Cropping and docking is no more traumatizing than spaying and neutering! We who are pro-cropping and docking are not heartless monsters, so don't label us as such!

Oh well, as long as cropping and docking remains legal in the U.S. while I'm alive, I'll be happy. I don't see any reason to get upset over the procedures; the dogs who've had them done don't seem any different psychologically than the dogs who are natural. Watch videos online to see for yourselves. It doesn't harm the dogs any more than spaying and neutering does, so what exactly is there to object to? It's just that too many people these days humanize dogs. These people don't think it's right to subject another living thing to a procedure they can't consent to. Well, they are JUST dogs, NOT people, therefore they are not entitled to the same rights and treatment. Let me say this again: Cropping and docking is no more traumatizing than spaying and neutering! We who are pro-cropping and docking are not heartless monsters, so don't label us as such!

Well you know there are some that would say neutering can harm a dog, if done at the wrong time. That aside, have you ever heard of something called social signalling? It is arguable that some dogs can lose a proportion of their social repertoire when docked/cropped, they can end up unable to signal properly to other dogs or, at the very least, send out confusing/ambivalent signals. Is this difficult or frustrating for the dog, can it suffer as a result?

You claim to know the answer because, after all, dogs are not people, but I think it is more honest to say we just don't know.

I was interested to know your reaction to the AKC GSD standard that posits working ability and conformation as the ideal dog of that breed.

the dogs who've had them done don't seem any different psychologically than the dogs who are natural. Watch videos online to see for yourselves.

We don't have to watch videos, unlike you we here have LIVED through the change and seen it with our own eyes.

Cant imagine why you're arguing the point with someone who obviously ( and to be fair has clearly stated) thinks that all animals were put on Earth for her use and pleasure.
There was an internet sensation recently of a video clip of a Pug with neurological problems, clearly uncoordinated, unable to run normally YET thousands of people though it "funny, cute, OMG how sweet" etc.
Im sure if many of them knew how to create their own disabled dog ...they would. After all, they feel they have the doG given right.

Toolz,
One always hopes that people are open in their thinking and once challenged that perhaps new perspectives occur, ones that had not been considered before, and minds can be changed. I think part of the problem is that in also any group of like-minded folk certain ideas and ways of thinking just become a given- it's human nature. Sometimes it just takes a sea change and some new ideas to prompt people into a rethink. I try to have faith in the ability of people to respond to rational debate. Perhaps I am foolish to do so.

Cant imagine why you're arguing the point with someone who obviously ( and to be fair has clearly stated) thinks that all animals were put on Earth for her use and pleasure.

To make it clear to anyone ELSE who reads it -such as JH- that we here in the UK do not agree.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I can't believe some of you! I'm entitled to my views and I don't think I've broken any rules so why should I not be allowed to post comments on this forum?  The Neo from India was ugly and not typey to me. If you want a good example of the breed, look at this dog: <br /><br />http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/2011/photos/breed/WS16876603.html<br /><br />I just want to keep dogs the way I'm used to them as seen in U.S. shows. I'm not saying I want them to be bred to have freakish proportions, only that I don't want them to deviate from their modern look.

The concern is that we love our dogs and don't want them hurting to satisfy our human desires. I like good bone in my breed, but not at the cost of movement, health and vigour. I like a fair wrinkle but to emphasise expression, not drown it and generate eye and skin problems.

The example you gave above would be no use as a working neo. Yes we don't use molosser types for working purpose any more but they should still show the strength, power and HEALTH needed to do their former roles. Otherwise what is the point?

You say you don't want freakish proportions but what use can the excess skin around that neos face have? Rather than offering protection as a moderate looseness would for the dogs original role it is an impediment, source of conformational issues and surely is likely to be snagged and torn?

I thought overall it was a very nice group, I particularly liked the bully as he didn't have the exaggeratedly short muzzle we've been seeing the last few years and a gorgeous chest on him. I thought the neo's head in particular was nice.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">In my view the dogs you call Neos have no right to that name, or rather their breeders have no right to call them that. The breeder of gross exaggeration is riding on the mystique and glamour of the working dogs of the past, it is that history that they use to underpin their 'pedigrees' and which they flag at every opportunity to prop up their endeavours. <br /><br />As you point out, the real working Neos and the poor beasts you espouse, have little in common....they might as well be a different breed. A mastiff should be able to do a job and there is something called behavioural conformation whereby the 'design' of the dog' is intimately involved with the job it does, mess with that and you lose type....real type, I mean, where body and mind, structure and drive, come together to form a whole.<br /><br />The 'quality' you refer to is a modern invention. You have divorced the look of the dog from its role. It is half a dog, and a very poor half at that. Where's the skill in that?<br /><br />You have the privilege of messing with nature but instead of doing something truly worthwhile and beautiful, you play with dogs and genes as flies to the gods...dispensable trinkets for your immediate gratification. I feel sick to think that there are people like you that genuinely think its okay and brush off the possibility of suffering because creating a winning 'quality' dog just feels so good. It's the worm in the showing world a sort of cultural personality disorder, zero empathy meets pure ego.

Like :)