Do You Believe The AKC GSP Standards Are Flawed??

briarpatch · Post by **briarpatch** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:02 am

Y'all that know me, Know I like to be a little controversal or debatable in some of posts at times, but I actually learn alot from the info gathered from listening to y'all and your reply's and I think alot of other people learn from them as well ..

I think this will be another one of those great but yet possibly abit controversal subjects..Should be very interesting..

I think some of the Guys and Gals with those great looking Black Dogs would probably want the standards Changed..

I have heard a few people tell me they believe the show dogs have grown to large to be effective in the field. Making them tire fast and not true to function.

And many people who have made comments that truely believe in breeding for or well within the AKC breed standards and breed strickly for meeting those standards..

Well Whats your opinion?

I personally always found it very interesting that the AKC and/or the parent club created its own set of standards and didn't adopt the country of origins standards which are slightly different. In size, colors permitted, and even tail length to name a few.

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 am

I personally always found it very interesting that the AKC and/or the parent club created its own set of standards and didn't adopt the country of origins standards which are slightly different. In size, colors permitted, and even tail length to name a few.

Are you sure the Country of Origin have not changed their standard during this period? I believe some have.

Ezzy

briarpatch · Post by **briarpatch** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:02 am

Are you sure the Country of Origin have not changed their standard during this period? I believe some have.

Now thats interesting ezzy and something I will have to look into further..

If anyone picked "I beleive the standards are flawed and should be rewritten"

Please tell us why you believe that they need to be rewritten..
what should be added or changed?

adogslife · Post by **adogslife** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:19 am

It is difficult to say if the standard is flawed or the breeder's who "interpret" the standard to their own desires are flawed.

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:29 am

adogslife wrote:It is difficult to say if the standard is flawed or the breeder's who "interpret" the standard to their own desires are flawed.

My first thought, standards can't really be flawed but they can be different than what the individual likes. That doesn't mean they can't or even shouldn't be changed if the majority of breeders think it is warranted. And that means all breeders and not just the ones who like to trial or the ones that just like to show.

Ezzy

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:06 am

interpretation is key. I would challenge anyone to read the labrador retriever standard below and then watch some in the ring and tell me you felt most of them fit this:

The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion. Physical features and mental characteristics should denote a dog bred to perform as an efficient Retriever of game with a stable temperament suitable for a variety of pursuits beyond the hunting environment.

The above standard is fine, but the actual dogs showing are often too fat to run 100 yards with out stoping. At this point you could maybe take half of them and have them drop 20 lbs and they could possible do the job. The other half are already bred too heavyset to matter.
I could list this issue for a lot of breeds that are working and hunting breeds. The german sheperd is another big one with it's over angulated rear...
point being the standards read well, but the interpretation of them excludes actual performace.

I believe the AKC standard is lacking in not allowing black.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:18 am

briarpatch wrote: I have heard a few people tell me they believe the show dogs have grown to large to be effective in the field. Making them tire fast and not true to function.

.

The size variation has been an issue since the early importation of the breed. Many of the early imports were even larger 80+ pounds I remember reading. The other end of the spectrum is an issue too, as I do not believe a 35 lb dog has the substance and size oringinally intended. It is still an issue but I have seen some pretty large heavy DK's and some pretty small ones also, though greater tendancy to range larger rather than smaller. As an issue of too much variation in size, I agree, but as an issue of AKC vs FCI, I believe the problem exhists in both from what little I have seen.

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:23 am

The above standard is fine, but the actual dogs showing are often too fat to run 100 yards with out stoping. At this point you could maybe take half of them and have them drop 20 lbs and they could possible do the job

This isn't a standard problem but just people over feeding their dogs because it looks nice. Thats called over conditioned. I do agree that the English breeding has made many of them shorter legged than I like to see or that work well in the upland field but are great for water work.

Ezzy

Hotpepper · Post by **Hotpepper** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:18 pm

If form follows function and the function in a bird dog that I like is definitely different that the "written" standard. The AKC pinnacle also disagrees as the GSP winner at Westiminister a couple of years ago sure was diffent than what the show side of the breed have been breeding and producing for a number of years. The short of it is that the field trials dogs of today are quite different than the dogs in the gsp ring.

I have nothing against the show standards but it is not what I want to hunt behind and over.

Pepper

snips · Post by **snips** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:24 pm

I thought the Breed Standards were put out by the GSPCA, not AKC.

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:37 pm

snips wrote:I thought the Breed Standards were put out by the GSPCA, not AKC.

That is correct, the breed clubs control the standards.

http://www.gspca.org/Breed/standard.html

If people would take the time to read the standard I don't think they would be so against it. It states dogs are not to be faulted for being in top field condition.

"The overall picture which is created in the observer's eye is that of an aristocratic, well balanced, symmetrical animal with conformation indicating power, endurance and agility and a look of intelligence and animation."

adogslife · Post by **adogslife** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:42 pm

Because the GSP is hunting breed, I believe no GSP should have a conformation title on the pedigree without proving itself in the field,as the versatile hunter it was bred to be.With more than a natural ability test.

vzkennels · Post by **vzkennels** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:56 pm

If people would take the time to read the standard I don't think they would be so against it. It states dogs are not to be faulted for being in top field condition.

The judges are the ones that need to read & FOLLOW it.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:02 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
The above standard is fine, but the actual dogs showing are often too fat to run 100 yards with out stoping. At this point you could maybe take half of them and have them drop 20 lbs and they could possible do the job
This isn't a standard problem but just people over feeding their dogs because it looks nice. Thats called over conditioned. I do agree that the English breeding has made many of them shorter legged than I like to see or that work well in the upland field but are great for water work.

Ezzy

I have a 3/4 english bred lab. She is smaller and blocky and I like that. Love the smaller height and calm happy nature. I guess it is the fact that the judges are putting up the fat dogs and selecting the big bellied look that bothers me greatly. Where is that interpretation going to lead. Yet the standard is sound. I would not think some of the dogs winning today would truely be a very good representative of that portion of the standard though.

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:11 pm

vzkennels wrote:
The judges are the ones that need to read & FOLLOW it.

Therein lies the true problem.

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:06 pm

Ridge-Point wrote:
vzkennels wrote:
The judges are the ones that need to read & FOLLOW it.
Therein lies the true problem.

I agree with this.

I also think that like most said before, it doesn't have so much to do with whether the standard is flawed or not. It's that every person interprets it their own way and that's the flaw.

I do have a question/thought however. What would being field titled have to do with being conformationally correct or being able to obtain a show title? I can see where it would show the dog as a whole package. But I believe that's what a DC is for and I will end it at that before I open a can of worms I really don't want to.

original mngsp · Post by **original mngsp** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:35 pm

Here's my .02 worth.

Form follows function is the key aspect. The bottom line is that the GSP is a sporting breed and therfore its breeding should be done to promote its usefulness as a sporting or hunting campanion. What we look for in this hunting dog varies by the game we each hunt, the type of country we turn our dogs loose in, and also just plain old fashioned individual preferences on traits we like in our dogs.

This breed is fortunate enough to be popular and a person can generally find the type of dog the like/need without having to look to terribly far.

The thing that bugs the heck out of me is the fact that the breed standard only emphasizes quantifiable things, ie height, weight, angles, color, structure etc. The most important features of my dogs I own and hunt with are heart (desire), nose, temperment, and the ability to hold up for 10 + years of intensive field work/hunting. Guess what....there isnt a single way to measure these in a conformation show.

Im glad people love this breed because of its versatility and generally wonderful companonship. What is sad is that dogs are being bred solely on confirmation, agility, obedience, and other types of traits that in no way shape of form represent what this breed was ment to do.

Before you think I'm just a show basher and such remember that us field people are just a small minority and all of us GSP folks are just a slightly larger minority in todays world where attacks by HSUSA, PETA, and other nut job groups threaten our very right to even own these wonderful dogs. I my not like what everyone else is breeding for but we dont need to drive a wedge between ourselves. That will just make the nut cases job easier.

adogslife · Post by **adogslife** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:02 pm

The standard clearly says that the breed is versatile. There is not one AKC event that demonstrates this versatility or promotes this in the breed. If you (in general) are going to love the breed and promote it you should care about the versatile aspect and breed for that as well as conformation. Getting JH or a few FT points does not cut it. The breed has become defined by it's pointing ability not it's versatility. When obedience,rally and agility become the new definition of versatile one has to wonder the direction of the breed.

to the point · Post by **to the point** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:33 pm

NAVHDA- Versatile

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:16 pm

Believe me when I say I am not a dog show enthusiast. In my personal opinion the actual "dog show" is way more politics than it is showing off breeding stock or judging a good dog.

However I have to say that there is some misinterpretation on some parts, maybe even my own. I think that some are saying that field ability, performance and the dogs brain should all be taken account for in a dog show. However that just isn't what it is. A dog show is merely 1 aspect of showing the versatility of a GSP. Having a Champion title does not make your dog versatile it just means it's conformation(manner of formation; structure; form, as of a physical entity) is sound and within the standard. Now you start talking about one's opinion of versatile before you can actually say what is or what isn't.

Maybe the standard is missing some traits. IMO they should lengthen the section about temperament and maybe even add one about personality.

The AKC has plenty of events to prove that your dog is versatile. Being that you believe that the whole thing isn't a gimmick and actually like to participate. There is conformation events, hunt tests, field trials, and water retrieving coarse, obedience, and others. Not to mention that the breed club holds events as well. There are also many other organizations like NAVHDA that are out there as well to prove your dogs versatility. If I saw a DC MH CD dog. I would stick my neck out there and assume they have a pretty darn versatile dog. FWIW

aylaschamp · Post by **aylaschamp** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:13 pm

Can I throw one more thing out there? I sure don't live in Germany and neither have any of my dogs! The type of game I hunt and the conditions I hunt are a cry different from where this breed originated. I've said it before and I'll keep preaching it, bird dogs are a continual manipulation of genetics to suit the hunters and they're conditions. Breed standards are a nice thing to look at but I'm not going to stick to it tooth and nail in order to derive the best hunting dog for my kennels.

briarpatch · Post by **briarpatch** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:56 pm

I thought the Breed Standards were put out by the GSPCA, not AKC.

Brenda I believe you are 100% correct that's why I put AKC/and or the parent club (the parent club being the GSPCA)

I knew this was going to be an interesting thread

I also believe the Black GSPs should be an acceptable color..They have been in the lines at least since the 1920's I believe.

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:00 pm

The difference is, are changing traits to better the breed, or are you changing the traits to better suit what you want. That's that difference IMO between an ethical and non-ethical breeder.

Also all good gsp's I have seen are versatile enough to adapt to most scenario's I have seen them put. From open prairie's to wooded areas. I've seen them range from 50-500 yards. Even the same dog on the same day. I think that you should breed for everything not just being good at what you like.

I think that the color doesn't matter, but there isn't black in the GSP that was brought here.

PrairieGoat · Post by **PrairieGoat** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:22 pm

IMHO, breeders should do what is absolutely best for the breed.....if it follows standards so be it, if not then the standards need to be changed. The standards should be based on the functionality of the dog. These dogs were bred for versatile hunting....I fail to see what color or other superficial qualities matter to hunting ability. The fact that they are locked into the standard, in my mind, diminishes the credibility of the standard. I personally don't see anything wrong with an evolving breed, as long as it is getting better. Standards that aren't based on the "function" of the dog and that don't evolve with the breed aren't worth the paper they are written on.

That being said, the question was do I believe the AKC GSP standards are flawed.....and my answer is, don't know and don't care (in that order!). When I buy a dog, I use the standards as a reference for breed information, nothing more. I look for certain qualities beyond what are in the standards...such as how is the breed going to take to my grandkid, is it a breed that is likely to get me sued when it bites a stranger, what are the generalities of its hunting style. After that I am looking for a proven bloodline and certain dog specific (vice breed specific) qualities (bidability, boldness, etc.). These help mitigate my risk that I will end up with a dud. I then care about physical aspects.....I want a male dog in the 60-70 lb range with good hips. And lastly come attributes such as color!

Randy

PrairieGoat · Post by **PrairieGoat** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:25 pm

GsPJustin wrote:I think that the color doesn't matter, but there isn't black in the GSP that was brought here.

I think you might want to go back and look at the breed history again....the Germans bred both black and liver GSPs (or DKs).

Randy

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:14 am

PrairieGoat wrote:
GsPJustin wrote:I think that the color doesn't matter, but there isn't black in the GSP that was brought here.
I think you might want to go back and look at the breed history again....the Germans bred both black and liver GSPs (or DKs).

Randy

That might be. I definitely do not know everything there is to GSP history. I am pretty sure that the German Shorthaired Pointer that was recognized here in America did not have black in the lines. The rest is all controversy and perception and none that I really care about.

If you like the black ones that's fine. Like I said I don't care about color.

adogslife · Post by **adogslife** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:20 am

The word versatility needs to be defined. Having a dog enter an AKC water event is what?-the dog being heeled into a cirlce,watching marks be thrown and then being told to fetch? this is versatile? This is the zenith of a water dog?
And obedience? Having a dog perform long downs and long sits,with no gunfire or game present-this is versatile?
How do either event prove versatility or mental balance? If they were perfomed on the same day,one after the other,maybe?
FWIW, proving versatility is proving mental balance.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:31 am

I'll throw in my .02 cents also.

In theory I agree form follows function. But if you are not trying to modify a breed away from what it was, but too only improve it then you mjust be including ALL of the functions that were originally intended and just making the dog better at all of them. The breed was developed to be all around hunting dog to "bring home the bacon" for the average none aristocrat hunter. A hunter who could not afford packs of dogs, fox hunt style hunts, giant organized pheasant flushes, etc. They were a family farmer's dog, a dog that could go hunt ducks in the morning, and actually retrieve ALL the game, hunt unland game, including rabbits and any other animal that was edible or economically benefiecial including foxes and squirrels, as well as birds. They could run hogs, run deer, track a deer or hog or fox and if was little enough to carry they were astounding retrievers and expected to retrieve it. They were meant to tolerate cold weather, and retrieve from cold water. They should be tough in the field, not shy of briars or ice, but a loving family companion. When you breed for all of those things then you can look for form follows funtion BUT!! you should also note that although the Germans do state the form follows funtion philosophy, they do not only field test and depend on that to provide a fully sound breed. All dogs are required to pass conformation ratings as well. Why would they include that additional test if they felt the funtions solely important? Perhaps they realized something more.

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:48 am

The term "Form Follows Function" is misleading IMO. Ignoring a dogs conformation would imply that you do not care how well a dog moves in the hunting field, which to me is ignoring function. A dog that is built correctly will out perform a dog that is not, if all else is equal.

adogslife wrote:The word versatility needs to be defined. Having a dog enter an AKC water event is what?-the dog being heeled into a cirlce,watching marks be thrown and then being told to fetch? this is versatile? This is the zenith of a water dog?
And obedience? Having a dog perform long downs and long sits,with no gunfire or game present-this is versatile?
How do either event prove versatility or mental balance? If they were perfomed on the same day,one after the other,maybe?
FWIW, proving versatility is proving mental balance.

"The German Shorthaired Pointer is a versatile hunter, an all-purpose gun dog capable of high performance in field and water."

That is the first line of the AKC standard. It may be a loose definition of versatile, but it gets the job done. It is up to the breed club to enforce the standard. The GWP is required to perform a water test prior to earning a SH or MH title, there is no reason the GSPCA could not require the same. If you feel the testing is not adequate then you can always try to change it, although it will require the club voting. This is why a breed standard is important, so the club can be kept on the same page and moving the right direction.

bondoron · Post by **bondoron** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:37 am

I am sure this will irritate some, but here goes. I do not agree with gspca on a lot of things. I don't feel they are doing this breed justice at all. As stated earlier the gsp was created to be an all around dog fur, tracking, birds, companion, etc.. I feel gspca has not pushed the ideals of the original reason for the breed. This includes the conformation side of it. It isn't only the fact that they won't allow black, or they decided they should be smaller than the original breed. It also includes the temperament. Bad temperament is a major fault and it will disqualify a dog from breeding in the DKV system.

I also don't agree in taking a breed and changing to what you want instead of what it was meant for. If you want a big running dog, and want to enter ft's or hunt an area with a lot of open land then buy an EP. If you want a retriever only type dog then buy a lab. If you want a dog that will do it all then buy a GSP. I am not saying a GSP has to do everything it was meant too. You don't have to use it on fur or waterfowl, however if you want to go ahead because it was meant for that. I know the next argument this isn't Germany we hunt different terrain. This is true in SOME cases. We have wide open lands and some of the thickest nastiest stuff around. We have mountains and we have flat lands, etc... I just feel the breed shouldn't be changed to what a group of people say. It should be kept as it was originally intended. If you don't like that then get a different breed. The reason there are so many breeds is because people want different things.

briarpatch · Post by **briarpatch** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:04 am

In theory I agree form follows function. But if you are not trying to modify a breed away from what it was, but too only improve it then you mjust be including ALL of the functions that were originally intended and just making the dog better at all of them. The breed was developed to be all around hunting dog to "bring home the bacon" for the average none aristocrat hunter. A hunter who could not afford packs of dogs, fox hunt style hunts, giant organized pheasant flushes, etc. They were a family farmer's dog, a dog that could go hunt ducks in the morning, and actually retrieve ALL the game, hunt unland game, including rabbits and any other animal that was edible or economically benefiecial including foxes and squirrels, as well as birds. They could run hogs, run deer, track a deer or hog or fox and if was little enough to carry they were astounding retrievers and expected to retrieve it. They were meant to tolerate cold weather, and retrieve from cold water. They should be tough in the field, not shy of briars or ice, but a loving family companion. When you breed for all of those things then you can look for form follows funtion BUT!! you should also note that although the Germans do state the form follows funtion philosophy, they do not only field test and depend on that to provide a fully sound breed. All dogs are required to pass conformation ratings as well. Why would they include that additional test if they felt the funtions solely important? Perhaps they realized something more.

abit more of my .02

Very well put mountain but i do believe many breeders are breeding away from what the dogs were originally intended.

Some could care less about water work ..or fur for that matter..Some could care less about hunting at all...
I beleive Some want big runners, some small ranging, some want larger slower dogs, some smaller faster dogs. depends on the type of hunting you do and where you live and what you want to see in a dog, the US is large and very diverse terrain the GSP is so diverse and can be trained to do amost anything and with breeding towards your particular situation, area or style of hunting as I think most breeders are naturally going to do, tends to lead to more diversity in the breed..
I beleive all think they are bettering the breed by breeding what they want to see from their dogs, and or for their particular niche, and many are breeding for the all around dog. but even many of those have many differnet ideas of what the perfect range is behind a hunting dog depending on where they live and the terrain and how they hunt and different ideas of what a all around hunting dog actually needs to do or hunt like and tend to breed towards their situation and or area of the US..
This is not really a bad thing in my eyes..
in my eyes this creates a great and very diverse breed and I think anyone can find many diffferent sized dogs and bred for the type of hunting and or range you prefer within this one breed.

Thats one of the reasons I created this thread to see what the general consensus was/is

and if most believe the standards do not quite fit the majorities ideas of what the standards should be for the GSP.

I personally love the breeders that put the info on their website's or in their ads the sire and dam normally hunts within this range this is what I normally use these dogs to hunt, the sire is 25 inches at the top of the shoulder and weighs 65 pounds or whatever. and the dam is whatever whatever..
Just a picture alone has fooled me in the past in thinking thats a larger or smaller dog then when I have seen the actual dog I was shocked to see the actual size.

just a little more of my .02 for what its worth

PrairieGoat · Post by **PrairieGoat** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:06 am

mountaindogs wrote:The breed was developed to be all around hunting dog to "bring home the bacon" for the average none aristocrat hunter. A hunter who could not afford packs of dogs, fox hunt style hunts, giant organized pheasant flushes, etc. They were a family farmer's dog, a dog that could go hunt ducks in the morning, and actually retrieve ALL the game, hunt unland game, including rabbits and any other animal that was edible or economically benefiecial including foxes and squirrels, as well as birds. They could run hogs, run deer, track a deer or hog or fox and if was little enough to carry they were astounding retrievers and expected to retrieve it. They were meant to tolerate cold weather, and retrieve from cold water. They should be tough in the field, not shy of briars or ice, but a loving family companion.

This I believe is the definition of versatile!

mountaindogs wrote:BUT!! you should also note that although the Germans do state the form follows funtion philosophy, they do not only field test and depend on that to provide a fully sound breed. All dogs are required to pass conformation ratings as well. Why would they include that additional test if they felt the funtions solely important? Perhaps they realized something more.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that there is a place for a conformational standard....it is what separates the various breeds; that is makes the GSP a GSP and not an EP. A conformational standard should be evolutionary and most important subservient to the functional standards. I believe this is how it evolved in Germany....functional first, conformational second. And both evolved to align with the objective listed in the first quote above.

bwjohn · Post by **bwjohn** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:12 am

aylaschamp wrote:Can I throw one more thing out there? I sure don't live in Germany and neither have any of my dogs! The type of game I hunt and the conditions I hunt are a cry different from where this breed originated. I've said it before and I'll keep preaching it, bird dogs are a continual manipulation of genetics to suit the hunters and they're conditions. Breed standards are a nice thing to look at but I'm not going to stick to it tooth and nail in order to derive the best hunting dog for my kennels.

I think there are enough different bird dog breeds out there that a current breed does not need to be manipulated to fit a certain situation or hunting application. If your chosen breed does not fit your hunting needs, you should consider a different breed not change the one that has been breed for certain hunting applications.

Brandon

adogslife · Post by **adogslife** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:44 am

A more accurate description of versatile is the ability to switch gears,not needing a down time or an "airing time".
A versatile dog knows when to be independent and when to be more cooperative,all in the same hunting scenario.
It's not so much that a dog can perform a function it's in the ability to switch from one task to another and being in control of it's temperment at all times. This is not trained, this is bred. When a dog is trained it is performing a task it would not normally do on it's own. When it is bred there is a ceratin calm about the dog,confidence and power.

fuzznut · Post by **fuzznut** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:10 pm

for those who believe the standard is flawed... could you be more specific? Which part of the standard is flawed? What that is part of the breed standard (any breed ) could/should be changed to be a better reflection of the breed.
Fuzz

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:18 pm

I have no idea why you are so anti-dog event. However I really don't think a dog needs to be able to compete in every venue all at once or sequentially to be called versatile. There are many ways to measure your dogs versatility and how hard you make your scale is up to you. I for one, think that a Hunt test shows a lot of versatility. There are some things about it, just like every event, that are biased based on what the majority of event participants likes or "wants to see". However, I believe that for your dog to succeed at SH and MH your dog has to show good hunting ability, versatility to change and adapt to independent scenarios, all the mean while obtain a very good level of obedience and control ability. Hunt tests are for sure not the end all, fix all to proving a dogs versatility but they do show some points to it. Yet that is exactly what makes this dog world so great. There are many avenues for you to embark to please yourself and your dog in a world of competition. I think that if you compete and succeed at some or many events you do, at least to some degree, have a versatile dog. I would like to add as well, that I know dogs and have known in the past that finish there show champion and get legs at a hunt test in the same weekend or even a placement in a field trial. Some even on the same day.

As far as I am concerned the only person my dog needs to prove it is versatile to is me. I open my eyes just enough to see said versatility every time I watch my dog run. However by having a dog that has multiple titles and has passed breed club or AKC sponsored events just proves to me and whoever asks that the dog "has what it takes". You can't make an experienced dog without experience. I don't think you could make enough test venues, or find the audience with enough money to prove that the dog can handle every single problem you or mother nature throws at them. Or make a test that proves that the dog has all the experience necessary to be someones do-it-all bird dog. I think that if your dog goes through a creek, lake, slough, pond, or puddle to get a downed bird you can add one more star on that dogs versatility chart. Whether you want to prove that to the public or not is up to you.

I do agree with you whole heartedly when you say a versatile dog should be able to smoothly transition from one task to another while being in control of ones temperament. I think you can breed for a dog with an acceptable temperament one that gives them a head start in the direction of open mindedness. However, only experience can make a dog that knows how to handle different scenarios, process actions, think ahead, and perform tasks while coexisting with you all in a manner as such to appear calm, cool, collected, and confident.

There are plenty of good breeders and dogs out there and that just convinces me more that I need to take no part in the breeding aspect of striving for a better dog, but you can bet that I will support the ones that do.

bwjohn wrote:I think there are enough different bird dog breeds out there that a current breed does not need to be manipulated to fit a certain situation or hunting application. If your chosen breed does not fit your hunting needs, you should consider a different breed not change the one that has been breed for certain hunting applications.

Brandon

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:10 pm

Justin,

I believe versatile pertains to different jobs the dog is bred to do. Hunt test for all but the GWP's only show their bird hunting abilities. It has nothing to do with the water retrieving, or hunting fur that the word versatile refers too. The versatile breeds were bred to perform all of these functions where the pointer and setters were bred to find and point birds. That's the difference and it doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Maybe I am wrong but it seems you are thinking versatile refered to different things your dog does while hunting birds and I don't believe that has anything to do with it. Point and retrieve upland birds, sit in the blind and retrieve ducks and geese, and go out and find rabbits to hogs and retrieve those it can carry is what a versatile dog was bred to do. Hunt test and field trials do not come close to covering this for our breeds.

Ezzy

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:25 pm

You are correct in that I believe that they need to be versatile while even doing one activity. I think they need to be able to handle hunting in different types of places, being able to retrieve in different scenarios. As well as be able to switch to something completely different.
I also think that they need to be versatile in such a way to be the all around dog they were originally bred to be. There isn't much fur hunting here in California, and I really don't care for hare meat either. So in that way I am not as opinionated or looking in that direction. Reason being even if I wanted to I probably couldn't. Neither is using a dog to track game. However I do duck hunt. My dog is in the blind. I just wanted to state that there isn't one test that shows your dog is versatile, its the fact that they succeed in many venues that makes them versatile.

I believe that being able to compete in dog shows, hunt tests, obedience trials, etc shows that your dog is versatile. I just also happen to think that a MH hunt test happens to show the dogs ability to do more than one activity all at the same time. I also said that it shows "some" points of a versatile dog. It definitely does not show what the Germans ultimately created the dog to do but it does show that your dog can handle different tasks simultaneously.

Thank you for pointing out that I was not clear. I knew what I meant, but forgot to portray the whole concept into words.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:10 pm

I find it interesting people are complaining about the standard and all this form follows function stuff anybody here ever go through an old GSPCA yearbook? One thing I've noticed doing some research is the the "show" dogs from the past still look similar to the "show" dogs today now the FC dogs of the past sure look like the show dogs of the past and present but the FC dogs of today dont look ANYTHING like a shorthair... Sure some show people dont hunt and we all know a JH doesnt say much about a dog but hey at least the show people are stepping foot in the field I dont see many field trial people stepping foot in the show ring...

Maybe alli's an exception to the rule but she finished 2008 #11 GSP show rankings owner trained and handled
Finished her MH with 5 Straight passes owner trained and handled
Hunts Grouse,Geese,Duck,Woodcock,and Pheasant

Seems to me the standard is just fine the way it is....

aylaschamp · Post by **aylaschamp** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:59 pm

bwjohn wrote:
I think there are enough different bird dog breeds out there that a current breed does not need to be manipulated to fit a certain situation or hunting application. If your chosen breed does not fit your hunting needs, you should consider a different breed not change the one that has been breed for certain hunting applications.

Brandon

Brandon, My breed the way it is suits me fine. Because my dog doesn't coral ducks so that I can net them doesn't mean I'm not using the dogs for what they are breed for. No matter what you all say EVERY breed has been manipulated to serve the purpose of the owner. I think it's extremely argent of someone to believe a breed is only good for what their standard is about. Germans had no idea what quail were when developing the breed. Here in the states we've breed more white into the breed to be able to see them in the field. Was that wrong???

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:36 am

Not as long as white is in US standard. Of course they had white in Europe too.

Ezzy

markj · Post by **markj** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:18 am

When this breed was first brought over did the folks importing them know how the germans did it? Were they aware of the DKV testing and such? Maybe not, maybe so, maybe they wanted an "American" standard that was close but kinda different? I for one like the KS dogs same as the DC dogs some are working so very hard to achieve. A big dog can run as a small dog, takes stamina and hunt drive.

Adam, you have one fine dog there. Takes a lot of work to get where she is, or is it all natural ability? I think she is a natural as my older dogs were.

In the 70s and 80s the dogs I had took very little training, they pointed, fetched, trailed blood all without hours of training. Heck they taught me how to hunt, where to look for the game we were after. I see a huge difference in the present day dogs I now have and hunt over. Not saying they dont get it done, just that they are different in the way they do it.

I feel the color black should be allowed to compete in the showside of things.

vzkennels · Post by **vzkennels** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:29 am

For the most part all the German breeds sporting,non sporting,working,etc have a little different conformation & temperament then the American breds.The German dogs are usually a little bigger,heavier boned,slower, & their temperament is much more sharp & they think the American bred dogs are babies when it comes to sharpness.The animal rights people & all the do gooders in this country would be calling for bans on alot of these breeds just like the pit bulls.

vzkennels · Post by **vzkennels** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:42 am

Mark I have to agree with you on the older dogs just doing things naturally but I also think that if we still had the same population of birds we had then there wouldn't be much difference.My first GSP taught me about hunting with a bird dog just as yours did & I never really trained other then teaching whoa more or less for safety reasons.The difference now is we don't have those wild birds to teach our dogs like we once did so we have to train more on pigeons,pen birds etc.I use to take a pup & just go hunting but today it's hard telling how many days it would take a pup to even see a wild bird now & we all know it takes birds to make a bird dog.I know I could do the same with my dogs as I did back then if the birds were available so don't think the dogs natural abilities have changed all that much.I think Charlie Rose would tell you the same thing since in most yrs he has enough wild birds to run pups on.JMO

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:43 am

vzkennels wrote:For the most part all the German breeds sporting,non sporting,working,etc have a little different conformation & temperament then the American breds.The German dogs are usually a little bigger,heavier boned,slower, & their temperament is much more sharp & they think the American bred dogs are babies when it comes to sharpness.The animal rights people & all the do gooders in this country would be calling for bans on alot of these breeds just like the pit bulls.

I think that is the most ignorant statement I have seen yet on this board.

vzkennels · Post by **vzkennels** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:46 am

GsPJustin · Post by **GsPJustin** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:34 am

I found it sarcastic and informative, along with some degree of unfortunate truth

briarpatch · Post by **briarpatch** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm

One thing I've noticed doing some research is the the "show" dogs from the past still look similar to the "show" dogs today now the FC dogs of the past sure look like the show dogs of the past and present but the FC dogs of today dont look ANYTHING like a shorthair

Adam, I have to disagree with that statement slightly, and believe it was a little harsh statement towards a particular group of breeders that is not all deserved of that statement, while its true some or many if you will of the feild trial lines have developed into a very different looking dog..Obviously that is not a completly true statement of all FC lines or there would be no Duel Champions today of which there are many. obviously these Duels have both the same build and general look as a show dog confirmationaly or they wouldn't have won there show Championship title as well as their FC title.

Very nice looking dog you got there and it apppears she is very versatile as well.

briarpatch · Post by **briarpatch** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:25 pm

I am surprised to see only one vote so far for the FCI standards where's the DK guy's

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:28 pm

Adam wrote:I find it interesting people are complaining about the standard and all this form follows function stuff anybody here ever go through an old GSPCA yearbook? One thing I've noticed doing some research is the the "show" dogs from the past still look similar to the "show" dogs today now the FC dogs of the past sure look like the show dogs of the past and present but the FC dogs of today dont look ANYTHING like a shorthair

This is a great point and something I have thought about for awhile. What happened? Many not only look different but seem to have different temperments.

Do you believe the current AKC German Shorthaired Pointer Standards are flawed?