More internet hype and misinformation!

Pixie,
1st) A "FT Dog"; assuming Shorthair, since this is a GSP BB; MUST Win at least 4 points in Retrieving Stakes for it to be recorded as a FC. Kind of self defeating to the Pro's to have a dog that they can't finish it's FC because it "MAY RETRIEVE"; Dontcha think? Also for the record, many to most Shorthair Trials have, or are Retrieving Stakes in the adult stakes of Gundog or Limited Gundog.

2nd) A strong back(topline) is just as important and maybe moreso to a FT Shorthair, if it is to be able to compete at the higher levels of FT'ing. Kinda hard for a dog to have the endurance to run for 45 minutes to an hour FULL OUT and finishing "going away strong", if it's conformation is not up to snuff. Just because you usually see poor "stacks" in win photos does not mean the dogs have poor toplines, more that you have handlers that don't even know what a "stack" is, let alone how to do so.

I'll agree with your comment on over angulation.

Playing the devils advocate for a moment....

Several have suggested that it is okay to breed American GSPs to focus on FT performance (and not blood trail, water work, etc), simply because we primarily hunt birds in the US.  Thus we loose some of the versatility in the breed.  Maybe this is okay, maybe not.  Probably a matter of personal preference and vision for the breed.

That said, it seems to me that you can use the same logic as follows.  Since there are less hunters every year (as % of population), and less public land that has quality hunting, it is becoming more difficult in many parts of the U.S. to hunt over dogs (not true everywhere, of course, but in a general sense this is true).  Also, hunting is simply less popular today than it has been in the past (I am an avid hunter by the way).

SO, if we are justified in changing a breed to meet our NEEDS, then perhaps a GSP that makes a phenomenal companion for an active lifestyle and has excellent conformation and beauty is EXACTLY the kind of GSP that many interested pet owners would like.  Whether we like to admit it or not, all of the sporting breeds exist in many pet-only homes.

I certainly agree that a dog should perform the duties it was bred for, but there are plenty of labs that enjoy romping in the water with their family that have never even seen a duck.  You COULD apply this same logic to shorthairs, assuming you agree with the assertion at the top that we can/should change a breed to meet our needs or desires.

Please note that I am not necessarily endorsing any of the above, just trying to follow the logic that has been expressed to its conclusion (IMO).

Ken

Thanks Ken, that's what I was trying to say, I just wasn't able to say it as well.

"To breed for "conformation," i.e. dog shows, is not to breed for beauty, it is to breed for style and fad, and for a dog that can no longer carry out its function."

I agree. However, you have stated earlier that this "function" of a breed evolves over time. So now, there are less people relying on their dogs for hunting/food these days, and more people relying on them as pets. Why, following this idea, isn't it okay for a breed's function to cross over to the "pet" side, since that's what most people want these dogs for?

Get a Cavalier if you want a pet, they are the classic pet.  Or a cockapoo.  Or a shar pei.  Working dogs should be bred to be working dogs.

Understand, I am not saying that it is wrong for someone to own one as a pet.  But to breed the dogs for the pet market is just wrong. 

But again, following the stubborn logic here....one could say that versatile breeds should never be bred for bird hunting only? 

At the end of the day I think we should stick with the standard, and not change the breed at all, except to try and more closely meet the original standard.  Just my two cents.

Here is a question for you Ken.
Why would you say they were not Bred to be Versatile?

Because they were not used for Waterfowl?
Because they were not used for Hogs and Deer?

orrrrr, Because they are not Tested in NAVHDA?

I personally want my dogs to swim and show enjoyment for water, but I don't hunt Waterfowl.

I want them to show the ability to be able to switch gears and go from pointing, to tracking a running, wounded Grouse AND retrieve it given the chance. But I don't blood trail Deer or Hogs, becasue in most cases it is illegal for me in my hunting, to use them to track Deer and I don't hunt hogs. Have fooled around with SAR's though, if that counts.

I don't bunny hunt with them, because I'd rather use a Beagle for that task, though I haven't hunted bunnies in many years. Addicted to Grouse

I'm not sure I should say how I want them to respond to a feral cat......

I do know how I WISH they would respond to a Skunk or Porky....... That's some prey drive I could do without!

I'm just confused by what makes you feel they are losing, or not bred for  versatility. By the way..... I'm easily confused!

What was the breed?  Can you explain its characteristics for us?  What is it that must be kept?  For example, the schutzhund ability.  Is it important to you that the dog be capable of attacking a human on command?  Is that part of it?

"Here is a question for you Ken.
Why would you say they were not Bred to be Versatile?

Because they were not used for Waterfowl?
Because they were not used for Hogs and Deer?

orrrrr, Because they are not Tested in NAVHDA?"

 Well, I didn't actually make this point, as several "FT only" folks have made the point that breeding for characteristics that emphasize upland bird performance over other aspects of the GSP is something they endorse, due to the fact that there are more birds in the states than in Europe.

I am not an expert on what is the best way to maintain versatility in the breed, lets be clear on that.  But I would suggest that breeding to develop VC's is probably more important to maintaining the breeds heritage than breeding to produce FC's.

"I personally want my dogs to swim and show enjoyment for water, but I don't hunt Waterfowl."

I do hunt waterfowl with my GSPs, and this is a great example where breeding for field work (lighter, faster dog with a bit less bone) is actually a detriment for water work, where a dog with more bone can crash reeds better and their thicker mass keeps them from loosing heat as quickly (the biggest problem with GSPs and water work, in my experience, is that they can get quite cold).  Of course, someone could say that GSPs are not the best water dogs, and that I should get a lab.  But hey, the whole point is to have a one-stop dog!!  I am okay with a dog that is very good in the field, very good in the water, very good in the forest, but NOT the VERY BEST in any.  IMHO, if you want a dog that is the BEST in any one discipline, find a speciality breed that meets your needs.  But please don't breed to specialize the GSP toward a single discipline.

Of course I know you are not suggesting this Bruce, just trying to make my original point more clear.  Did I succeed?

kr-

I am still not hearing you say what the breed was, that should be preserved.  What were its characteristics.  What point in time?

YOu guys are throwing this term versatilty around but what is versatility here vs. in Europe? The dog must point upland birds? Check both do that. They must sit in the waterfowl blind and retrieve waterfowl from the ponds? check both will do that. Track game? check both will do that. I am not seeing a difference here other than what is required of the dog in Europe compared to America. We require different tasks so we breed as such. Dont like it? Move to Europe then and use your dogs there. There is no point in owning a dog that is excellent in preforming european tasks if you never get to use them here and the other way around.

You say that a bigger dog will hold more heat and go through thicker cover. Well I agree with the first part but after seeing a little GSP rip through the same cover as my big one I would have to disagree. Instead of going through the cover like my big guy does they simply stay low and just run straight through. No crashing almost like they weave through it. I do agree though a bigger dog is going to hold more heat but its the coat thats the deciding factor in all this and a GSP's coat is suited for shooting waterfowl down in the souther most states where it never gets colder than freezing or just below it.

http://www.trader.co.nz/versatiledogs/articles/derjag.htm

If litters are not bred with versatility in mind then there is a good chance that "nerve" will weaken.

Francine

Ryan, you are wrong on a couple counts.  First, not all cover can be "ran under."  I have had wounded ducks crawl deep into submerged reeds, etc, where a powerful dog is more suited for the retrieve.  Show me a skinny dog that can swim under submerged reeds and I will really be impressed and concede the point!

As far as southern states and freezing temps, wrong again.  GSPs have been used successfully as far north as Alaska to retrive waterfowl and geese from ice encrusted ponds and rivers.  I have personally used my GSP in the bitter winters in Idaho and he did just fine, although a neoprene jacket can really help if you don't have a heated blind.  Have you ever traveled to Europe, any idea what the winters are like in Germany where the breed was developed?

The NAVDHA defines versatility as: "a dog that is bred and trained to dependably hunt and point game, to retrieve on both land and water, and to track wounded game on both land and water."  This is the definition that I am using in this thread (does not include killing stags, attacking people, jumping buildings, etc).

As far as breeding, it does make a difference what you emphasize.  If you wanted to, you could easily turn the GSP into a hound dog over time, only interested in trailing game.  You could turn the GSP into a water dog that looses its pointing ability.  You could turn the GSP into a pointer/retriever, loosing the water desire, trailing ability, etc  (not because it was intentionally bred out, but if you don't test and select for these abilities, they WILL go away).

And no, I don't plan to move to Europe just because a few other GSP fanciers disagree with me... 

Once again a skinny dog will simply just go through the submerged weeds. Dont under estimate the power of a dog because the size. The skinny dog will get it done just the same. Having hunted over both I couldnt see a big difference between the 2 to say which is better. Thick thick cover give me a smaller dog because they will weave through it. I have seen and hunted in cover where if the dog cant weave he wont go through because its too thick to crash through.

As for waterfowl hunting I am in Southern Alberta I know harsh winters and GSPs and they are not for this climate. Yes I use mine but once it gets to minus 10 degrees celcius no more water for him its just too dangerous. I dont hunt in a heated blind if I did I might think different. Early season we bring out the lab and GSP but once it gets cold the lab is used unless we are in the field. Yes I use a neoprene vest and even still minus 15 or 20 with a minus 30 windchill is no place for a GSP.

 If we dont test these abilities they will go away? If thats the case why do trial dogs make so good NAVHDA prospects? Why can trial dogs still track? Why do trial dog make such good water dogs? Its all about introduction and the training. Oh and why do trial dogs make such good dogs? Because of their independance and drive.

I am not saying you have to move to Europe what I am saying is why have these abilites if your never going use them? Why buy a dog that is the best hunter in Germany for hunting in the America's? Why wouldnt you buy a dog that has been bred to hunt in the Americas where your hunting?

There are several problems with your theory of what dog should be frozen in time.

The dog you speak of had many traits that the Germans prized, but which do not work well here in the US.  For example, pixie speaks of "nerve."  Were you aware that the German dogs were tested for a characteristic called "sharpness," in which they were expected to dispatch a predator?  As done several decades ago in Germany, a pit would be dug, a badger or similar animal would be placed in the pit, the dog would be put in and a board would be put over the top.  If the dog killed the badger it could be bred to, if not, well then breeding was not an issue because the badger got the dog. 

This test is still conducted today under the German rules, and in fact a male dog cannot be bred unless it has passed the test, although the test has been modified because of German legislation back in about the '70's.  The pit is no longer used.  Rather, the dog is expected to catch and kill a predator as a result of a "chance encounter" in the field. 

The dogs were also used to pursue and bring down stag, and were used as bay dogs on boar, the bay dogs being the dogs that find and corner the boar until the "kill dog" arrives.  Bay dogs need to be willing to take on the prey, in order to keep it at bay.

The dogs were also used for schutzhund training in which, among other things, they would be trained to attack a human on command.

Needless to say, these German tests and uses required a dog with a strong temperament, what used to be referred to as "sharpness."

The dogs we saw here in the US 40 years ago, the wave of imports that came to the US after WWII, were very hard headed, aggressive, and stubborn.  This leads to a great many problems in the field.  For one thing, the dogs do not work well in braces, hunted with other dogs.  In fact, in none of the German tests, nor in the NAVHDA testing, are dogs ever tested for their ability to work with another dog. 

It also took a very strong hand to train the dogs.  Don't get me wrong, if someone wants this kind of dog and is willing to put in the time and effort to train it, they are welcome to it.  But it is not a dog for novice trainers.  There was a good article in one of the shorthair news magazines awhile ago about schutzhund training, which gave the number of hours it takes each year to train a dog to the required level and keep it there, and it was the equivalent of a half time job.

The majority of us who hunt in the US want some of the versatility the GSP has to offer, but not the personality nor aggressiveness of the German dogs that you would like to see preserved.  Nor do we like to have to put the extreme amount of obedience training into a dog that is needed.  The Germans say that such dogs make excellent home companions.  I am sure they do, after they have been heavily obedience trained.

No, thanks.  We prefer the dogs as they have been bred here in the US.  Athletic, bird finders, companionable to a fault, intelligent, do not require harsh training to get a point across and probably won't kill the family cat.  If you think that is a change from what they were, then we are glad of it.

The problem with "theory" is that the dog as portrayed by the Germans, and by early importers, was full of nothing but "theory."  The reality of the dog was little spoken of.