Informative website

 

http://naturalrearing.com/coda/index.html#landing

 

More on Structure and Movement

Puppies;

We are looking for athletes. Look for a well co-ordinated puppy. Puppies often have trouble moving from one gait to another. At 8 weeks of age, the side movement you see will be the same as you will see as an adult.The coming and going at 8 weeks will change as an adult.Avoid making too many allowances for your puppies.Big, overdone puppies may not be the best choice. Make sure you don’t just keep a big puppy for size. Make sure he is a very good example of the breed also. Straighter puppies are more in control of themselves as puppies. Be careful you don’t fall into this trap either. You can miss a good puppy because he looks too small.A puppy with proper angulation may be cowhocked as a puppy.Patience and puppies go together.

Breeding;

The difference between a personal bitch and a foundation bitch; A personal bitch was the owner’s first breeding bitch.Breeding up does work but it takes a long time.You breed a mediocre bitch to a good sire and keep the best . Then you repeat the process. This method is costly and time consuming.

A true foundation bitch is classic and well formed and comes from great bloodlines.She should be a bitch that is producing or is capable of producing superbe progeny. She will also produce progeny that are capable of producing themselves. Selection is the key to the breeding program.As the quality of the judging goes down then the good breeders need to be even more vigilent. Only select the best from each breeding to go into the gene pool for the next generation. You need to breed for the same type each time you breed. Set your type and continue to work in that direction.The more traits you select for then the less improvement you will see over the generations.The less traits you select for then the quicker will be your progress through your breeding program. One rule of thumb is to never go to a sire whose dam you do not like.The most important dog in your breeding program is the sire’s dam.

In-breeding- father-daughter,mother-son,brother-sister This is a very severe test and you must be prepared to cull as lethal genes will be brought to the fore if any are present.

Line breeding- half brother-half sister, aunt-nephew,grandmother-grandson The common thought is that the dogs in the third generation have the greatest influence on the puppies.

Close breeding- closer than line breeding but not as close as in breeding

Out-crossing- introduces a totally different set of genes.Breeding of unrelated animals. 5 generation pedigree with no related animals. But maybe type to type can help your breeding program. Hybrid vigor.

The dominant male line is always on the top of the pedigree and the dominant female line is on the tail female side of the pedigree.

That’s it folks……………………….

Various quotes from The Ed Gilbert Seminar on Structure and Movement

Live for our dogs and Not off our dogs.

Form-Function verses Fad - Fashion

It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.

Look for traits that render a dog unsuitable to do the job for which he was bred.

A longer dog can move better to conceal more faults.

 Stages of Evolution:

1. stage 1- Breed evolves because of its usefulness to man.

2. stage 2 -Man selects breeding stock to best enhance usefulness.( this is the purest stage of development)

3. stage 3-Breed becomes a luxury item…………..pet or showdog

When stage three becomes an end in itself then a breed becomes one in trouble.

Functional type is working type.And this is not standing type. ( standing on a line to have it’s photo taken)

Straight Fronts—————-

Why are breeders and judges picking for this? Part of the problem is small rings and short diagonals. ( a more angled dog has a very short space in order to try to show[properly) . Ann-Marie’s comment…….Several years ago many dog shows used to open both rings so that the German Shepherd Dog had the room necessary to move out comfortably. Considering that in Europe the Shepherds are shown in football stadiums…you can undersatnd how a 40 foot ring is a real handicap.Straighter dogs can get into position faster and hold it easier and longer than those dogs with correct fronts.The CKC/AKC/CFC ring is no test for a dog…ie read German Shepherd. Form and function cannot be separated if you are a purist.Pretty is as pretty does. Exaggeration can become a threat to any selection process.

Correct Fronts- there is nothing more misunderstood, nothing easier to loose, nothing harder to reagain and nothing more important in the dog.( Ann-Marie again—-hind ends can be fixed in one breeding but if you loose your fronts then you are in big trouble.)

OK. That is it for today……………………………more tomorrow.

Rally Worksop and Seminar

Hi Rally Enthusiasts  - Here is confirmation of dates for a Rally Workshop / Seminar in the Spring.

The dates will be April 24 & 25, 2010 at the Lions Den in Amherst, Nova Scotia.

The Tantramar Club members plan a Fun Match on the Sunday, April 25 - giving you a wonderful opportunity to have practice sessions before the Show & Trial season gets going in earnest.

I’m going to spend some time preparing a ‘possible’ format that will be up-dated from the last work shop. We (Reta & Norma) plan to focus not only on course design & prep work, the Stewards in Rally, but also a description on the ‘how’ each station should be performed; a possible aid for Rally Instructors. 

Some of you have asked ‘ how should ______ station be taught and/or judged?’ Hopefully, this workshop will answer your questions. Meanwhile, we’d like you to keep an ongoing record to present during the Q & A periods.

This workshop is open to all Obedience & Rally Judges, Rally only Judges, AND all Performance Exhibitors. Please feel free to forward this message to those who may not receive it. 

The fee of $40.00 will include information packages, the Fun Match plus a lot of practice time. Registration form coming soon.

Our friends of the Tantramar Kennel Club will have their always fabulous canteen….... including chocolate cake & boiled icing plus those yummy coconut squares.

Bring yourselves, bring your dogs for a fun filled week-end.

Further updates coming soon…. stay tuned.

Let’s Rally

Norma Hamilton

FYI USA ISSUES

Subject: Competing German Shepherd Dog Organizations - Conflict of Interest


The Proposed Amendment Related to USA Membership and Membership in Competing German Shepherd Dog Organizations

Recently there has been a lot of discussion amongst our membership and on the chat lists regarding some of the proposed by-law changes. We have anxious members worried about the future of our organization and the German shepherd dog breed. The issue is complicated because it involves numerous factors related to the international scene that most are unaware of. Many who criticize this proposed amendment do so because they focus on the perception that an alternative path for monetary gain and glory would be closed to them. They harp on this, intent on raising opposition and discord, all the while abandoning their loyalty to the betterment of the German shepherd dog and the organization that has truly effected the breed’s betterment over the past thirty three years in the US and internationally. Moreover and unfortunately, many of our members are being misled and misguided by those that have a clear conflict of interest.

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America continues to be a full member of the WUSV. The AWDF also received a letter last year, from the FCI, granting continued participation as a guest in their FCI Working Championships. While we are not members of the FCI, neither is the AKC or any of its breed clubs. Our events continue to be internationally recognized. Just recently, the SV awarded eleven of our senior judges with SV foreign judge licenses. This is an epochal accomplishment and evinces the respect our organization has attained internationally. We also have four of our USA Judges that are FCI recognized. This is another strong indication of the international acceptance of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America.

History has shown that the GSDCA has, on more than one occasion, attempted to hinder with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America’s international recognition within the WUSV.  Those attempts were unsuccessful. History also shows that without the United Schutzhund Clubs of America, the development of the German shepherd dog in the United States as a working dog with adherence to the FCI standard would be very minimal, if even existent.

 

On several occasions, I initiated discussions with the leadership of the WDA and the GSDCA in attempting to establish clear communication and cooperation amongst our organizations. I envisioned our organizations working together and sharing ideas for the betterment of the breed. This past May, the President of the WDA and I agreed to work on a plan for a merger of our organizations. It was agreed, that since the United Schutzhund Clubs of America held a seat as a full member of the WUSV and the WDA did not, that I would work on the development of proposed by-law changes to merge both organizations. I was excited about the future of the German shepherd dog in this country and was preparing the necessary by-law changes to make this happen at our General Board Meeting this November. Just a few weeks later, the WDA signed a contract with the GSDCA. Unbeknownst to me, the President of the WDA also purportedly had a meeting with the AKC to promote WDA self interests while I was working on the necessary changes to effect a merger between our organizations. This is not the first time in the history of our organizational relationship that we have been misguided by WDA leadership. Although I was cautioned by several members, I maintained a cautious optimism that the current group was different. Certainly it would have been in all of our best interests to work together as separate organizations aligning with a common goal: “To protect and  preserve  the working German shepherd dog represented by the FCI standard”. While the optimism I once maintained about this possibility has all but dissipated; I still hold to the hope that the GSDCA and WDA will work honestly with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America for the betterment of the German shepherd dog through adherence to the FCI standards for structure, health and temperament.

The United Schutzhund Clubs of America should not change our stance on this position because the GSDCA has now decided to suddenly develop a stronger relationship with the WDA. Those organizations are placing their hopes that such an alliance will lead them to host a successful 2013 WUSV Championship. However,there has been no abandonment of the GSDCA’s love affair with “their American Shepherd”. Obviously, just look at the picture on the front page of their website.

  

It is time that our membership faces the issue of the huge conflict of interest that exists from belonging to both organizations. Belonging to an organization(GSDCA-WDA), whose idea of the German shepherd dog is so totally out of line with the FCI standard, hinders our ability to protect the WORKING heritage and FCI standard of the German shepherd dog in the United States. Please go beyond the rhetoric and determine the true motivations of those that voice self-centered indignation of the proposed by-law amendment by saying, “Organizations be damned, I just want to show my dog!!!!” Please also read between the lines and question the accuracy and truthfulness of those who are trying to rally your support by saying “Don’t let them tell you what to do!  Show them you will not be told what to do!” As was pointed out to me by one of our members, in order to represent the WDA as a member of the WUSV team, membership in the GSDCA is a requirement. I ask you who is telling whom what to do? All we are doing is asking you to make a choice, the right choice.

Thank you very much for your attention to  this letter. I hope it provides further information to justify the amendment and to rally your support in favor of it.

Yours in the sport and for the betterment of the breed,

Lyle Roetemeyer

Lest We Forget

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kX_3y3u5Uo

Merry Christmas

Twas the month before Christmas*
*When all through our land,*
*Not a Christian was praying*
*Nor taking a stand.*
*See the PC Police had taken away,*
*The reason for Christmas - no one could say.*
*The children were told by their schools not to sing,*
*About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.*
*It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say*
* December 25th is just a ‘ Holiday ‘.*
*Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit*
*Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!*
*CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod*
*Something was changing, something quite odd! *
*Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa*
*In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.*
*As Targets were hanging their trees upside down*
* At Lowe’s the word Christmas - was no where to be found.*
*At WalMart and Staples and Bouclair’s and Sears*
*You won’t hear the word Christmas; it won’t touch your ears.*
*Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty*
*Are words that were used to intimidate me.*
*Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen*
*On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !*
*At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter*
*To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.*
*And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith*
* Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace*
*The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded*
*The reason for the season, stopped before it started.*
*So as you celebrate ‘Winter Break’ under your ‘Dream Tree’*
*Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.*
*Choose your words carefully, choose what you say*
*Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,
not Happy Holiday !*
Please, all Christians join together and
wish everyone you meet during the
holidays a
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Christ is The Reason for the Christ-mas Season!


 


 


 

 

 

 

 

Spay Neuter??????

 Ovaries & Longevity masthead
 

A Healthier Respect for Ovaries
David J. Waters, DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVS

A recent study by my research group appearing next month in Aging Cell reveals shortened longevity as a possible complication associated with ovary removal in dogs (1). This work represents the first investigation testing the strength of association between lifetime duration of ovary exposure and exceptional longevity in mammals. To accomplish this, we constructed lifetime medical histories for two cohorts of Rottweiler dogs living in 29 states and Canada: Exceptional Longevity Cohort = a group of exceptionally long-lived dogs that lived at least 13 years; and Usual Longevity Cohort = a comparison group of dogs that lived 8.0 to 10.8 years (average age at death for Rottweilers is 9.4 years). A female survival advantage in humans is well-documented; women are 4 times more likely than men to live to 100. We found that, like women, female Rottweilers were more likely than males to achieve exceptional longevity (Odds Ratio, 95% confidence interval = 2.0, 1.2 - 3.3; p = .006). However, removal of ovaries during the first 4 years of life erased the female survival advantage. In females, this strong positive association between ovaries and longevity persisted in multivariate analysis that considered other factors, such as height, adult body weight, and mother with exceptional longevity.

In summary, we found female Rottweilers who kept their ovaries for at least 6 years were 4.6 times more likely to reach exceptional longevity (i.e. live >30 % longer than average) than females with the shortest ovary exposure. Our results support the notion that how long females keep their ovaries determines how long they live.

In the pages that follow, I have attempted to frame these new findings in a way that will encourage veterinarians to venture beyond the peer-reviewed scientific text and data-filled tables of Aging Cell to consider the pragmatic, yet sometimes emotionally charged implications of this work. Call it a primer for the dynamic discussions that will undoubtedly take place, not only between practitioners and pet owners, but also within the veterinary profession. Call it a wake-up call for how little veterinarians have been schooled in the mechanistic nuts and bolts underlying the aging process. Call it an ovary story.

Do ovaries really promote longevity? Observed associations between exposures and outcomes may not necessarily be causal, so we explored alternative, non-causal explanations for the association between ovaries and exceptional longevity in our study. But we found no evidence that factors which may influence a pet owner’s decision on age at ovary removal — for example, earlier ovariectomy in dogs with substandard conformation or delayed ovariectomy to obtain more offspring in daughters of long-lived mothers — could adequately account for the strong association.

There is another aspect of our data pattern that gives us further confidence that ovaries really do matter when it comes to successful aging. A simple explanation for the observation that ovaries promote longevity would be that taking away ovaries increases the risk for a major lethal disease. In Rottweilers, cancer is the major killer. We found, however, that by conducting a subgroup analysis that excluded all dogs that died of cancer, the strong association between intact ovaries and exceptional longevity persisted. After excluding all cancer deaths, females that kept their ovaries the longest were 9 times more likely to reach exceptional longevity than females with shortest ovary exposure. Thus, we observed a robust ovarian association with longevity that was independent of cause of death, suggesting that a network of processes regulating the intrinsic rate of aging is under ovarian control. This work positions pet dogs, with their broad range of lifetime ovary exposure, to become biogerontology's new workhorse for identifying ovary-sensitive physiological processes that promote healthy longevity.

Interestingly, our findings in dogs surface just as data from women are calling into question whether those who undergo hysterectomy should have ovary removal or ovary sparing. In fact, our results mirror the findings from more than 29,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study who underwent hysterectomy for benign uterine disease (2). In that study, the upside of ovariectomy — protection against ovarian, uterine, and breast cancer — was outweighed by increased mortality from other causes. As a result, longevity was cut short in women who lost their ovaries before the age of 50 compared with those who kept their ovaries for at least 50 years. Taken together, the emerging message for dogs and women seems to be that when it comes to longevity, it pays to keep your ovaries.

But before we all go out and buy T-shirts with some romantic imperative like “Save the Ovaries”, perhaps we should step back and consider the following question: Why haven’t previous dog studies called our attention to this potential downside of ovariectomy? Reviewing the literature, an answer quickly bubbles up. No previous studies in pet dogs have rigorously evaluated the association between ovaries and longevity. Two frequently cited reports (3,4) provide limited guidance because: (1) longevity data are presented as combined mean age at death for a relatively small number of individuals of more than 50 breeds of different body size and life expectancy; and (2) ovarian status is reported as “intact” or “spayed”, rather than as number of years of lifetime ovary exposure. Comparing female dogs binned into the categories of “intact” versus “spayed” introduces a methodological bias that might lead one to conclude that ovaries adversely influence longevity, i.e. ovary removal promotes longevity. Because the reasons for ovariectomy (e.g., uterine infection, mammary cancer) increase with increasing age, it is expected that a large percentage of the oldest-dogs are binned as “spayed” despite having many years of ovary exposure. For example, a dog who at age 12 undergoes ovariohysterectomy for pyometra would be binned as “spayed”, despite 12 years of ovary exposure. In our study, we employed a more stringent study design — restricting the study population to AKC registered, pure-bred dogs of one breed, carefully quantitating the lifetime duration of ovarian exposure — in order to lessen the likelihood of such bias. And we reasoned that studying veterinary teaching hospital-based populations of dogs with artifactually low life expectancies (for example, 3.5 years is median age at death for Rottweilers in the Veterinary Medical Data Base)(5) was an inappropriate vehicle to describe the influence that ovaries have on aging. So we cast a wider net and collected data from Rottweiler owners nationwide, focusing our attention on exceptional longevity, not average age at death, as our study endpoint.

Why study exceptional longevity? Why not average longevity? We thought studying the most exceptionally long-lived individuals would tell us something about what it takes to age successfully. It’s the same rationale used by Thomas Perls and investigators of the New England Centenarian Study (6) and by other scientists who study long-lived humans in other parts of the world (7). The approach even garners support from the mathematical field. In a seminal book on the origins of creative genius, the mathematician Jacques Hadamard wrote: “In conformity with a rule which seems applicable to every science of observation, it is the exceptional phenomenon which is likely to explain the usual one.” (8) Hadamard was trying to understand how the brain gets creative so he studied people with extreme creativity. When it comes to studying aging, we’re solidly in the Hadamard camp. That is why in 2005 we established the Exceptional Longevity Data Base, launching the first systematic study of the oldest-old pet dogs (9). But folks in the opposing camp might justifiably fire back: “Don’t study extreme longevity. Extreme longevity is much more about luck than it is about genes, or environment, or ovaries.”

So to address the possibility that the “strangeness” or outlier nature of dogs with exceptional longevity could be forging a misleading link between ovaries and longevity, we studied a separate cohort of Rottweiler dogs. This data set was comprised of 237 female Rottweilers living in North America that died at ages 1.2 to 12.9 years — none were exceptionally long-lived. Information on medical history, age at death, and cause of death was collected by questionnaire and telephone interviews with pet owners and local veterinary practitioners. In this population, we found females that kept their ovaries for at least 4.5 years had a statistically significant 37% reduction in mortality rate (1). This translated into a median survival of 10.4 years for females with more than 4.5 years of ovary exposure — 1.4 years longer than the median survival of only 9.0 years in females with shorter ovary exposure (p < 0.0001). Taken together, if you take out ovaries before 4 years of age you cut longevity short an average of 1.4 years and decrease the likelihood of reaching exceptional longevity by 3-fold.

Up to this point, my ovary story has centered around a summarizing of methodologies and results. The reader has been given opportunity to see the gist of our findings within the context of previous dog studies and late-breaking studies in women. Now, let us pivot our attention a bit away from the results to focus on the recipients of these results — DVMs and pet owners.

We can start by tackling the question: Just how receptive will DVMs be to these new research findings? It’s hard for old dogs to learn new tricks. But one thing is sure — blossoming change is rooted in real communication. The anthropologist Gregory Bateson wrote: “The pre-instructed state of the recipient of every message is a necessary condition for all communication. A book can tell you nothing unless you know 9/10ths of it already.” (10). I call this “Bateson’s Rule of the 9/10ths”. If Bateson is right, then we will want to do something about the pre-instructed state of veterinarians. Because when it comes to the biology of aging, the state is virtually a blank slate. None of us received training in the biology of aging as part of our DVM curriculum — whether we graduated 30 years ago or last summer. Therefore, most DVMs are ill-prepared to receive messages examining the mechanistic underpinnings of the aging process. A Batesonian prescription for positive change would be to ratchet up the biology of aging IQ of practicing veterinarians. We agree. That is why we established the first gerontology training program for veterinarians in 2007 (11). We believe that by helping veterinarians “know” more about aging, they will be more able and more receptive to communicating the things that promote healthy longevity in their patients — things like preserving ovaries.

For certain, DVMs will be asked by pet owners to help them make their decision about age at spay in light of this new information. The question will be asked: Just how generalizable are these findings in Rottweilers to other segments of the pet dog population? It is impossible to say at this time. It will demand further study. Alas, 10 years from now, we might just find out that a longevity-promoting effect of ovaries in dogs is limited — limited to large breeds, urban but not rural dogs, or only those individuals with particular polymorphisms in insulin-like growth factor-1. These restrictions should not only be expected, they should be celebrated. It will mean that we have looked more deeply into how ovaries might influence healthy longevity. It will mean that our initial findings have been contextualized. And it is this contextualization of information that marks scientific progress — the kind of progress that guides sound clinical decision making. For it is context that determines meaning (12).

Our provocative findings in Aging Cell mean that it’s time to re-think the notion that taking away ovaries has no significant downside to a dog’s healthy longevity. Perhaps it would help us if we thought of lifetime ovary exposure as information — information that instructs the organism. Just how long and how healthy a female lives reflects what her cells, tissues, and organs thought they heard from the message received. Of course in biology, there is no single message but a symphony of messages, enabling each individual to successfully respond to environmental challenges. Our findings suggest that ovaries orchestrate that symphony. Taking away ovaries in early or mid-life makes for muddled information, less than perfect music.

Information muddling can ensnarl decision-making. Our research takes an important first step toward disentangling the thinking about ovaries and longevity. We must never be paralyzed by the incompleteness of our knowledge. Our knowledge will always be incomplete — subject to revision, primed for further inquiry. This uncertainty, although invigorating for the investigator, is often painful for the practitioner who seeks simple, fact-driven algorithms to guide his action. Just as scientists will be called upon to forge ahead with their scientific inquiries, so too will practitioners be counted on to master the uncertainty. Together, we must navigate what the Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard called the gap “between the understanding and the willing.” That is, we must ask the right questions and make smart choices so that our action (the willing) is in synch with our knowledge (the understanding). Under just what circumstances will a particular individual benefit from specific lifestyle decisions? This is perhaps the most prescient, overarching question in the wellness and preventive medicine fields facing both human and veterinary health professionals today. How can we promote healthy longevity? Antioxidant supplementation or calorie restriction? Ovary removal or ovary sparing?

Undoubtedly, there will be protagonists and antagonists in this ovary story. The protagonists will be open-minded to following a new script. They will embrace the idea of ovary sparing for critical periods of time to maximize longevity. They might even recognize the need for some sort of “ovarian mimetic” in spayed dogs to optimize healthy aging. The antagonists in this story — the defenders of the old script — will dismiss as trivial the notion that ovaries regulate the rate of aging and influence healthy longevity. Lines will be drawn and opinions will fly. But that’s what healthy debate is — antagonists and protagonists keeping a high priority issue front and center, not allowing it to fade into the woodwork. It would seem that, in light of the new scientific findings, a contemporary dialogue should balance the potential benefits of elective ovary removal (13) with its possible detrimental effects on longevity.

References

1. Waters DJ, Kengeri SS, Clever B, et al: “Exploring the mechanisms of sex differences in longevity: lifetime ovary exposure and exceptional longevity in dogs.” Aging Cell October 26, 2009

2. Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E et al: “Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the Nurses’ Health Study.” Obstet Gynecol 113: 1027-1037, 2009

3. Bronson RT: “Variation in age at death of dogs of different sexes and breeds.” Am J Vet Res43: 2057-9, 1982

4. Michell AR: “Longevity of British breeds of dog and its relationships with sex, size, cardiovascular variables and disease.” Vet Rec 145: 625-629, 1999

5. Patronek GJ, Waters DJ, Glickman LT et al: “Comparative longevity of pet dogs and humans: implications for gerontology research.” J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 52: B171-8, 1997

6. Perls TT, Hutter Silver M, Lauerman JF: Living to 100: Lessons in Living to Your Maximum Potential at Any Age, New York, NY, Basic Books, 1999

7. Franceschi C, Motta L, Valensin S et al: “Do men and women follow different trajectories to reach extreme longevity?” Aging (Milano) 12: 77-84, 2000

8. Hadamard J: The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. New York, NY, Oxford Univ Press, 1945, p. 136

9. Waters DJ, Wildasin K: “Cancer clues from pet dogs.” Sci Am 295: 94-101, 2006

10. Bateson G, Bateson MC: Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. New York, NY, Bantam, 1988, p 163

11. Gerontology Program for DVMs co-sponsored and organized by Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation, Purdue University Center on Aging and the Life Course, P&G Pet Care; for more information go to www.gpmcf.org

12. Waters DJ, Chiang EC, Bostwick DG: “The art of casting nets: fishing for the prize of personalized cancer prevention.” Nutr Cancer 60: 1-6, 2008

13. Kustritz MV: “Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats.” J Am Vet Med Assoc 231: 1665-75, 2007

 

.

 

Facebook Page

Grunfeld now has a Facebook page. Enter Grunfeld German shepherds and follow the pictures etc from clients and friends.

Fred Lanting Sieger Report 2009

And now for the show itself. If you have read my predictions on the `net, you will be aware that I was “darn close in my educated guesses” in spite of many absentees due to sale overseas (mostly China) or retirement. My prognostications are based both on my personal observation of gait & anatomy, and on how the dogs have performed in the past. For those who are breeders or prospective puppy buyers, I am listing the current hip rating (Zuchtwert) in parentheses behind dogs’ names. The lower, the better or safer. In the 70s is preferred, but close to 90 or above represents increased risk of dysplasia.

     Entries and attendance were still down from many previous years because of the world economy, but Europe is better off than America in this regard, and is bouncing back earlier. The show was noticeably better than last year, and in a much better stadium. 


Friday is the longest day, with lower-ranked dogs between 12 and 24 months’ age competing in four scattered rings, and the adults doing their protection qualification tests in the large stadium (divided by a screen so females and males, respectively, can’t see the bitework going on by the other). For those purists in the sport, and those who want to know the true performance in order to add that to the calculation of which dogs are better to breed to or linebreed on, this is the most important part of the competition. At smaller shows during the year, only the beauty-contest portion is seen, and that is not enough to base such decisions on. 

     But even in spite of this supposed safeguard for the integrity of the breed, many unworthy dogs sneak past this intended barrier, because the performance judges will frequently “pass” with a “Pronounced” rating some dogs that should fail or get a “Vorhanden” (passing but not very good). And the judges who are doing the individual conformation judging in a location far from the bitework (they are the ones that will rank the adults then and in the next two days) are not able to see the actual work. Therefore, they cannot consider a poor performance when they grade the dogs by beauty.

     Last year, with only 155 adult males, there were 21 “working” (open, adult, titled) males who were either T2 “Vorhanden” (barely sufficient, but to place at the end of all the others if they stayed for that part of the show) or T3 “Nicht Genügend” (insufficient courage and not eligible to return for the beauty-&-gaiting competition). This year, there were 55 in those two categories combined, out of 237 presented. These figures have more meaning when you realize that in 2008, 14% of these males were T3 or T2, but in 2009, a whopping 23% “failed” (with both of these categories being failure in my demanding opinion). It was with a sickening feeling that most of the crowd watched and waited for decent performances. These statistics were somewhat offset by the larger numbers of working-line dogs entered, well-received by the crowd, and doing fairly well this year. 

     Another disappointment that I have voiced before, is the excusal from further competition, of dogs whose owners decide that their chances of making a big splash with a super placing have been diminished. This belief could be based on how the judge has placed the dog before, or comments made on this day, or other reason. The owner might feel it is better for stud-service reasons to pull the dog than to receive a placing further back than he believes the dog deserves. It used to be the rule that such a withdrawal from continued competition on the weekend required a veterinarian’s statement that the dog was sick or lame, but that route was so corrupted that it was misused or practically abandoned. On the other hand, there are many “working-lines” dogs whose owners just wanted their bitework to be seen by thousands of people, and who didn’t want to waste the time trying to get a show placing behind 150 other dogs.

This year, the crowd missed the chance to see the group gaiting and placing of such favorites as Furbo degli Achei (78), Ilbo Holtkämper See (78), Dax Intercanina (81), and Tiras Roten Feld (74), for whatever reasons that were given. Their absence after the bitework and “individuals” is one reason my forecast on placings was not quite as accurate as it could have been. Also, I do not keep up with who has been sold to China, or retired from competition. Still, I hit the mark pretty closely. Deducting the absentees, I had predicted this order: Vegas du Haut Mansard (85), Yerom Haus Salihin (88), Yukon Bastillie (86), and Kwantum Klostermoor (90), and I was “spot-on” with these first four. I also said that Tuareg Bad-Boll (73), the well-pigmented Schicco Freiheit Westerholt (92), Remo Fichtenschlag (71), Ustinov Römerland (82), Clinten Holtkämper See (75), Digger Elzmündungsraum (71), and Panjo Kirschental (90) would do especially well, and they indeed placed V14, VA6, VA7, V1, V8, and V10, respectively. VA means the top several of the V dogs, these letters standing for Vorzuglich (Excellent) and Vorzuglicht-Auslese (Excellent-Select). 

     Some dogs were not listed in the official tabulation as having been excused from competition. The slap-on-the-wrist “punishment” of not being allowed to compete for a few months is meaningless, because there are almost no shows in winter anyway. There are several reasons for their absence, not many being easy to discover. For example, the very nice-looking and good-working Tyson Köttersbusch only did the bitework and showed in his progeny group but, reportedly because of his size(?), the owner didn’t show him. 

     In females, I listed Alisha Eichenplatz (85), Viva Hopfenhalle (69!), Chayenne Karthäuser Löwentor (81), and Lea d’Ulmental (89) in that order, which was also close, as they finished VA2, VA9, V4, and VA7, respectively. You may remember that last year my group visited Chayenne at home after the show. Siegerin this year is the Vegas daughter Bella Kuckucksland (89). A couple of other bitches that caught my eye in the protection and gaiting were the Sirio daughter VA-10 Mega Holtkämper See (81), and the beautiful V6 Romina Piste Trophe (95).

   

     Other than the dogs that completely lacked courage or those that failed to get a “pronounced” (ausgeprägt) and “lets out” (lässt ab — stops fighting on command or when struggle stops), there are other results with these codes: T1 = lässt nicht ab, ohne Bewertung TSB (doesn’t out in time, but no problem with the fighting drives); and T4 = abgebrochen wegen mangelnder Führigkeit, which means the dog failed to heel all the way to the point where the “bad guy” with the sleeve runs out from the blind to attack them. Many over-eager and less-trained dogs jump the gun, and they only have 3 tries to do it right. Unfortunately there were a few males who weren’t so controlled in that approach to the first blind, one of which was the strong-character dog we visited a few days later, Yvo Wildsteiger Land. This beautiful, well-constructed Odin son is pictured in the photo appendix to this article. And he has a Zuchtwert of 78, which is quite good. His problem this year was that he was too playful instead of serious about the bitework.

     I already mentioned some of the top winners, and you can go to the SV websites for the official listing of all dogs shown, or any of the private sites that carry the whole results. However, in this report, I’d like to mention that I may have missed a few (one must visit the toilet once in a while!) and I wish to comment in detail on some others that may not have done as well as the top-placing dogs. So you will find here something more than just a catalog of winners. After each Sieger Show, I discuss with my group these additional observations.

 In both the bitework and the younger classes, I paid more attention to the males, because they have more influence on the breed since they are bred so much more often, but I saw the work of a few females, too. Forgive me if I missed your favorite bitch. I would like to have seen lower ZW numbers in most of the top dogs, but it’s always a balancing act for breeders who want both good hips and super show results. Allow me to first mention some things about dogs with ZWs under 80 before commenting on some that may have placed higher in the show competition.

     Remo Fichtenschlag (71), owned by Josephine Kao of Taiwan, got VA 7. Two places behind him was Paul Bierstadter Hof (77), a handsome Odin son with very good upper arm and chest development. V3 Paer Hasenborn (75) was not very convincing in the bites. V4 Clinten Holtkämper See (75) did not do good bitework, but got “ausgepragt” (pronounced) anyway. Peik Holtkämper Hof (75) was V11 this year, but watch for this great Ilbo/Roma son to make great strides in 2010, and I’d wager that he’ll have a great progeny class in 2011 if the Chinese don’t buy him too quickly. The Odin son V23 Ballack zu Worringer Rheinaue looked great and did very good protection routines. Yoe Haus Salihin (75) has a substantially lower ZW than his VA2 litter brother, did equally impressive protection work, and placed V27 in the beauty pageant. Also with a ZW of 75, the Esko Dänischen Hof son V34 Hero Annacarton (owned by Irishman Patrick Thomas) lived up to his name. Mr. T. also owns the great Ilbo Holtkämper See. V29 Chivas Bad-Boll (Odin son with a great ZW of 76) is promising in both the courage and beauty departments.

     The Hill Farbenspiel son VA3 Yukon needs more training re the self-controlled “out”, but had very good hits on the “bad guy.” He also might be a little too deep in chest (and I noticed that in several of his sons this year). Dux Cuatro Flores might be a little better in that regard. The Vegas son VA8 Bojan Pendler (86) did very good work and looked very impressive in stance and gait. In Friday’s protection phase, one of the standouts was Puck Urbecke (96), who at (amazingly!) nearly ten years old, put on an impressive piece of work in the defense and attack. He never has placed high in the conformation competition, and was pulled after the bitework this year. The Arko Butjenter Land son V19 Bruno Vierhundert Hertz (81), a handsome dog with very dark mask, showed great courage and enthusiasm. Idol son V13 Taboo Nordteich (90) showed excellent work overall. A Dux Cuatro Flores son, Nexx Hartis Bohemis (79), did beautiful work with truly hard hits. He was one of several “showline” dogs given special recognition for excellent bitework, others being VA5 Ober Bad-Boll, V23 Ballack, V48 Filou Ducati, V40 Hillson Athaba, Sieger Vegas (did a truly great SchH routine), and V94 Untox Freiheit Westerholt. 

     Bazi Urbecke offspring (the adults) did very well in bitework and all looked very uniform in the progeny group. Outstanding among them were V98 Aslan Belle Amber (80), who showed excellent training, did not take re-bites or nibbles/chomping, and never turned to look over his shoulder; and V25 Frodo Langenbungert (89). One Bazi son, V67 Vigu (89) did not deserve the “ausgeprägt” he was given. Incidentally, his brother Valof just won V2 in Argentina’s Mar del Plata (Landesgruppen) show and “best attack” trophy. As expected, Hill Farbenspiel offspring did admirable work, such as Hillson (92), V89 Falco Bonne Patte (95), VA 3 Yukon, and V65 Urbano Urbecke (88). 

     Other miscellaneous comments on performance: The work by Panjo was good; that of Vegas son Cronos d’Ulmental (91) excellent (but he was then pulled); VA4 Kwantum (90) was a happy worker with great anatomy and reddish pigment. V1 Ustinov Römerland (82) did good work for a Quantum Arminius son (and half-brother to Sgr. Zamp). The Vegas son Arex Wilhelmswarte (84), bred by a SchH-trial judge and owned by a wealthy fancier, did poorly in the courage test yet got both “ausgeprägt” and V2; hopefully his performance will improve next year. The well-trained V49 Danish dog Karat’s Fedor (88) had wonderful attitude on the field and at ringside — his great parents are Aiko Goldenen Zweig and Karat’s Olly. Aiko also was sire of the good-working V69 Indro. V75 Xambo Roten Feld (72) was impressive in the work, as was Rüdiger Mai’s Dux Cuatro Flores son V43 Atlas Bierstadter Hof (96, unfortunately). We missed Godalis Tino this year because he tore a ligament in a rear leg.

     As usual, the better performances were mostly done by the working-lines dogs, but they were also better represented in the progeny groups, kennel groups, and the show competition than previously. The ones that impressed me the most were V54 Javir v. Talka Marda (with a fabulous 70 ZW!) and his sons, V122 Zidane v. Kammberg (71), V124 Yack v. Kammberg (70), the dark sable and super worker V125 J.J. v. Trauntor (76), and daughter V118 Chini v. Ecke (70). There were many other, younger dogs in his progeny group, and all with happy, energetic temperaments. I suspect they will also prove to have admirable Zuchtwert numbers, too. Javir could be considered the star of Friday’s show. His intense and enthusiastic jumping straight up during the bark-and-hold, while barking in the face of the helper/attacker, excited the crowd. Good topline, though he could have taken some fewer steps in the gaiting. Zidane actually tore the sleeve off the attacker on the “long bite” (running attack down the field). Yack thrilled spectators with his incredibly long (and accurate) Malinois-like flying leap to hit the attacker on the long bite. 

Other “working-line dogs” of note: SG1 Aik Ziegelbornschneise (76). The Olly Grauen sable son V74 Odin toten Niersarm (86) who had good enough structure that I would have moved him up many placings. The dark-B&T V130 Hutch kalten Hardt (74) was a quick, happy, excellent worker. Sable (the Germans call them “grey”) V135 Owen Klopferle (71) did impressive work. V91 Jakomos Längerts (71) was another sable that sped down the field eagerly. The bi-color V120 Hoogan Vorderhain (78) was big, fast, and did great bitework. Notice all those low ZWs? The “perennial” competitor V132 Gerry Waldesruh (82) at 6 years old did his usual excellent work. The super-working black V126 Alex schwarzen Seeperlen (84) showed expert training and drives. The American (Brookline, Massachusetts) V100 Azlan Petit Geant had very good training but a ZW of 91.

     The judges recognized 20 males as having outstanding working drives, including Sieger Vegas, Aik Z, Untox Freiheit Westerholt, Yack and Zidane with their sire Javir, Ober, Ballack, Hutch, Nexx, Filou, and Hillson. Eight females were so honored, and included Chini and Lea whom I have mentioned. 

     As mentioned earlier, I concentrated my viewing on the adult males, but also saw some excellent younger dogs. One was the Irok son / Fritz Farbenspiel grandson from Pisa Italy, Taris dei Profeti. Owned by Giuliano Profeti, one of Italy’s premier breeders, Taris did not initially place high enough (in the “first group” in his very large class), so he was pulled before the final ranking. Maybe next year’s judge will like him better, Giuliano hopes. He has great strength in body and head, dark eyes and mask, and very good reach (a bit better than his action in the rear).

     Winner of that 12-18 month male class was Sultan Jahnhohe (77), who stood out yards ahead of his nearest competition. This animated Vegas son has an excellent front assembly, good proportions though a bit stretched and long in second thigh, high withers, and a handsome head like his sire’s. Watch for this outstanding dog with VA potential next year, if the Chinese don’t get him first. In third place was another Vegas son, Marcus Ossmann’s Wegas Fichtenschlag (86) with excellence overall, but not a threat to the class leader this day. Also in that class was the very promising Bazi son, SG16 Yello Arminius (71), who could do with just a little more front angulation, but has everything else going for him. I like him very much. SG 2 was Nino v Tronje (97), another Irok son of high anatomical quality but a little lacking in desire by the time I spotted him. SG 22 Lux Valentinientis, a Nick Moorbeck son owned by Ernst Ruckert but not yet listed in the ZW statistics, has very good reach and drive, and good eye and mask pigment. SG4 was Sammo di Casa Beggiato (82), an Ober Bad-Boll son that Hans-Peter Rieker probably has great plans for. By the way, the ZW numbers of young dogs is more a calculation of their parents’ records than their own production because of their age (too young to produce X-rayed offspring themselves).

     In Jugendklasse Rüden (12-18 months old males), I got to see a few very promising future stars. Uday Jani’s Godalis Tino son, Iceman Amur (78) was SG 5, and had very nice anatomy overall. Behind him in 6th position was another well-structured dog, the Zamp son Kratmosen’s Baroni. The Odin son, SG11 Ritzy Wustenberger-Land, owned by American Jeannette Kempkes, presented an outstanding outline and gait. Second, third, and fourth in that class were wonderful young dogs whose owners are from Italy, France, and Peru. 

     Whether your main interest is the enthralling beauty show, the sometimes-exciting courage tests at the show, shopping for a younger dog or a breeder, or to see an interesting part of Europe with an experienced judge-guide and friendly companions, you might wish to join my tour. Now, here’s the “commercial”: to prepare fully, I recommend that you get my book on The Total GSD (from me or from the publisher, Hoflin), and if you are breeding or curious, think about ordering my big HD & orthopedics book (direct from me).

     Pictures for this report are in a separate appendix, and both should be available on selected websites. If you did not find the photos, e-mail me for a URL where you can get them.
Fred Lanting,  Mr.GSD@netscape.com

note: Author and worldwide consultant Fred Lanting <mr.gsd@]netscape.com> is an internationally respected GSD specialty and all-breed judge for many registries, has judged numerous countries’ Sieger Shows and Landesgruppen events, and presents seminars on such topics as Structure, Orthopedic Disorders, Training Techniques, and the GSD. Fred invites all to join his annual non-profit Sieger Show and sightseeing tour. Articles can be found on http://siriusdog.com/sphider/search.php?query=lanting&search=1 , or by a Google search for his name. Request permission to reprint these copyright pieces and add this or a similar notice at the end.