Ryan, a dog's behavior is dictated by both genetics and his environment.  You can use training to influence a dog's behavior, but you cannot fully develop or overcome traits that have been established through years of selection.  From your postings here, you seem to place a lot of confidence in training a dog beyond its genetic disposition, more than I would.

Why is it so frustrating for the FT crowd to endorse a versatile GSP (as defined above)?  I find it interesting that I started this thread with a critque of the "show only" crowd that do not breed for performance (hence the title of the thread), now we are focused on what "performance" constitutes.  For me this has been very illuminating, and it reinforces (in my mind) the need for balance in any breeding program.  An eye to the breed standard, measures of performance, and the breed history are all critical to furthering the GSP.  If in the end of the day the only measures of performance that you are willing to accept is upland bird pointing and retrieving, then you are entitled to your position, I will respectfully disagree.

Wagonmaster, great points and they might be valid (I am not in a position to agree or disagree on the early German imports).  The problem is, that is not the dog I was proposing to "freeze."  See my post on 02/25/2008 7:38 AM.  Most of your discussion does not apply to the "type" that I am suggesting.

Ryan said:
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.


Ryan,
in your description of what makes a good trial dog I do not see cooperation and mental balance.
Relying solely on independence and drive may make good trial dogs but it is not what makes great versatile dogs.
Why can trial dogs still track? Because they have a nose. But do they have the focus to begin and stay on a cold track? A blood track? Do you have any idea that it is hard wiring that makes a dog stay on a 400m bloodtrack?Wiring that is hard to come by.If it was as easy as being born then every German dog would pass VGP.Not the case.
Why do trial dogs make such good water dogs?
What is your definition of good water dogs?
It is very difficult to breed good versatiles and according to you and others you don't have to be selective in your breeding, it just happens,naturally.
If a breeder does not breed based on a dog's weaknesses and strong points how can a trait stay strong or be improved?

Francine

My point to you is that what I described is the actual "versatile" dog created by the Germans that you thought you were describing.  The difference between theory and reality.  The dog you described has not ever existed.  Not in reality it hasn't.  There never was an "everyman's" dog, for the simple reason that very few people in Germany had the means or were allowed to hunt. 

What you seemed to do in your description is slip "everyman" into the US, and describe "everyman" as the average US hunter.  The average hunter in the US wants a dog that finds birds.  He or she is not interested in a dog that tracks deer or hunts rabbit.  Certainly there are people who would use the dog for that purpose, but not the average hunter.

Also, you description was addressed to the conformation of the dog, not its function.  The dog is a working dog, one does not describe or develop it by conformation, one develops it by function.  Good conformation to carry out that function will always follow.

You can't construct a theoretical dog and say that is the dog that should be preserved in time.   The theoretical dog never existed and therefore cannot be preserved.   In effect, what you contend is that the dog should be developed to fit your personal ideal.

Wagonmaster, I can't pretend to stack up to your experience with the breed, but I have read most of the published literature on the breed, including books by Byrnes, Dayton, McKowen, Maxwell, and many others. All of these authors were hunters, experienced breeders, breed champions, etc, yet I don't remember encountering such a tepid description of the DK as you provide in your posts. I am interested in your perspective, but would like to see you provide some sources to back your claims up. Is this reasonable?

Tepid?  You mean lukewarm?  That is the meaning of tepid.  So I don't understand I guess.

If you have in fact read those books, you will find everything I speak of in there.  In addition, I had the privilege of spending some time with some knowledgeable German breeders a few decades ago.  

But to the point, I am still looking for a realistic description of the dog you seek to preserve.  A dog that actually existed at some point in time.  Not a concept dog.   

WOW! Go to the farm for a couple hours and I hardly know where to begin now, with all of the additions to this thread! GREAT thread by the way!

Ken,

I can't really agree on the statement of breeding to develop VC's vs. FC.... neither one alone is in the best interest for the breed.

As example:

If only those that Tested in NAVHDA were breeding, the gene pool would get very thin, very fast and the resulting GSP's would become more focused on the retrieve, as NAVHDA is about 90% retrieve focused if I'm not mistaken.  If only those run for FC's were breeding, the gene pool would be a bit broader, if for no other reason that the typical "best to best" outcrossing of FT GSP's vs. the more typical line breeding of the NAVHDA GSP's, but again; the gene pool would get pretty thin, pretty fast.

Both venues serve a very defined and contributing purpose and to quote a statement from the link Pixie posted from Marg's website that will prove the validity of both:

"In European countries where breed clubs control the breeding practices, some breeds maintain strains within the breed with different strengths in the various requirements for hunting. The various strains are then used to beef up the performances of other strains when the breeding director or committee sees the need."

Obviously, this in a CONTROLLED Club setting, which does not, nor ever will exist in the USA in the GSP Breed as a whole. We're not talking DK's and the NADKC in this statement, that is another animal unto itself. Over here, we like to have freedom of choices and not have someone else direct us as to what "THEY, THE BREED WARDEN, THINK" the Shorthair should be. After all, doesn't the Breed Warden do the same thing that every US Breeder does? That is, to determine what think the Shorthair should be. That said, there will always be those that breed for strictly "their type" of Shorthair. Therein lies the beauty of the good ol' USA. It would be quite easy to put the hunt back into the Show dogs, by selectively breeding them to GSP's from strong hunting backgrounds and by breeding to those hunting dogs that already displayed good conformation, very little would be lost in that department of the Show lines. You say you have a NAVHDA line of GSP's that seems to have lost some of their pointing instinct? An infusion of FT blood could bring it back..... You say you have a line of FT GSP's that seem to have lost the desire to swim or retrieve.... VOILA! Look no further than NAVHDA for that needed infusion.

I think you can understand my disagreement with your statement of VC vs. FC. BOTH are an important aspect of American GSP Culture and both fit a niche that makes their owners VERY HAPPY and can benefit one another. Remember, it was FC GSP lines that have become the most successful line in NAVHDA......

I'm going to cut this off here, while I trey to catch up to the rest of the post and I'll add some more of my thoughts later..... FWTW!

Bruce, good points.  Your knowledge of the FT vs. NAVHDA breeding pool is well heeded, and I am fascinated by the notion of different strains emphasizing different performance abilities, with outcrosses to keep the breed balanced.  Very good stuff.  I also think this is a great thread.  Even if no one changes their perspectives, it is a huge benefit to share them with each other (especially for us young folks just getting into the breed!).

Ken

Wagonmaster, I have in fact read and still own all of the books I mentioned and more, not that it means anything really. But would you point me to a chapter or better a page in any of the above that references the DK as: overly aggressive, esp. toward humans, easily tired in the field, slow, etc. I will certainly look through the breed history sections (I am thumbing through Georgina Byrne's book now), but it would help if you can help me narrow my search. Not that I am doubting that you met DKs that meet the description you have provided, but I am still unclear as to how prevalent this was/is in the DKs. What I have learned up till now suggests otherwise...

Ken

P.S.  Tepid was a nice way to say that your description is less than enthusiastic, if not outright negative.

From C. Bede Maxwell, 2d ed. p. 50, of a dog from the mid-40's in Germany:

"K.S. Syedel's Hella pleased the critics in her day, and has been described as the embodiment of feminine elegance in movement and deportment, her head with its dark eyes described as ideal.  Frau Maria, to whom we are indebted for the background information on her famed strain, writes that there was great pleasure in handling Hella, who never failed to get her fox at the first sight, and was a clever worker in the trials.  'In the forest she searched closed, in the field went wide, and solid as a rock on point.  All her work was to hand signals.  She was also wonderfully man-sharp, a great guard.  After my husband's death, she stayed always close by my side, nor would she work for any other hunter.  A better hunting companion I never shall have, nor yet one that became a closer member of my family.'"

kr, all that you ask for has been posted before.  do a search on "temperament DK" and one on "sharpness" in the old forum archive and you will find extensive cites to material, as well as a discussion from 2004 among several long term breeders, of the temperament issues with the early dogs we worked with her in the US, as well as later DK's.  That was before my time on this board, so not my discussion.

You will also find a discussion in which the DK people state the current requirements for breeding and the nature of todays "sharpness" test.

I am going on a week long trip with my son tomorrow, so can't play anymore.

And re pixie's comment about the DK's not having a mansharpness test like the Weims, that is true.  Instead, they are simply trained as guard dogs by many.  And I have seen Weims undergoing schutzhund training, chained to a table at a NAVHDA seminar in the very early 80's.  Whenever kids walked by, they would lurch to the end of their chain barking savagely, and the owner would say, "Gut Boys! Gut Boys!"

Thanks Wagonmaster, will look in the archives.  I must say, the quote you provide sounds like a great bitch!  I assume the one thing you are pointing out is the line about "man sharpness," but the author certainly didn't indicate it was a problem in the field or elsewhere, just when she was serving as a "guard dog."  I would hope my bitches would do that well against an intruder, but I would guess not as they are softies...

Have a nice trip!

Ken

You need to understand that man-sharp meant that the dog would attack a human.  There are many ways this can manifest itself.  For example, your kids play in your back yard, the family dog is man-sharp.  Someone walks in the yard, say a neighbor kid, and the dog will attack.  I was personally attacked by such a dog, a shepherd, when I was 8, for the sin of walking out the back door of my grandmother's house.  We had a man-sharp GSP in the early 60's out of some of the early German stock brought to Minnesota.  It bit two aunts in separate incidents.  In the early 80's when I began to trial the strains of sharpness from German breeding remained in many GSP's and they were difficult to handle.  There would be fights between two dogs when they were released at the starting line, they would take you on in training, really all the good pros had been bitten at one time or another.  We once had an incident where a dog came into a stake out running free, picked a fight, attacked the handler who tried to break the fight up, and was killed in the process.

There is no such thing as "wonderfully man-sharp."  That quote is an expression of the cavalier view the early German breeders took concerning dogs that would attack.

In field trials a dog that attacks another, or a person, is written up and cannot run again without an exemption.  If it happens a second time, the dog is permanently excluded from trialing.  In our hunting camp we will not tolerate it.  I have seen dog fights precipitated during hunting trips by such dogs, a hunter tries to break it up, gets bit, and the hunt is over.

Sharpness is not cool.  Not cool at all.  

Pixie I wasnt talking about what goes into a good trial dog. Reread the post.

And yes if a dog fails yes first off I am going to blame it on exposure and training. A dog can be trained to do as what you wish. There may be some exceptions just like in anything else but it can be done.

Keep talking about blood tracking all you want it isnt used here in North America because almost all the states and provinces dont allow hunting with your dogs. Why can trial dogs track so well? Because it is excersized everytime a bird is shot bad and takes off running.

My definition is of a good water dog is a dog that is the same in the water as it is on land. Independent, wont stop a search for wounded or live game, and is independent enough to get away from the handler when it needs to expand its search.