2010 Sieger Show Report
Sept. 3-5, 2010, Nürnberg (aka Nuremberg):
As most of my readers know, I have been sharing my impressions of the Sieger Show (known in Germany as the Hauptzuchtschau) for a couple of decades. In these years, I have been leading tour groups to this main breed show, with several subsequent days spent visiting notable breeders and local training clubs. I try to offer a mix of: 1. Intensive dog study (including teaching novices about the breed, the show, and the particular dogs; 2. Introductions to breeders (usually some of my group will buy a dog from one or more of them); and 3. Sightseeing. This compromise gives something to everyone.
Common Sense Grooming Part 1 – The Haircoat
Fred Lanting
“Show me your dog, and I will tell you what sort of man you are.” …von Stephanitz, 1932
Although it is a characteristic of the German Shepherd Dog (which I have bred and judged almost since they walked off the Ark), the double coat is not unique to this breed, and the grooming techniques I have found to be best (and which I describe here) are applicable to many breeds. For readers who have terriers, sighthounds, poodles, and some others, you’ll have to modify these tips. The soft, fluffy undercoat of many scores of breeds is very light and somewhat flyaway, while the topcoat is coarse, heavier, usually straight, and imbeds itself like a whipworm into woven fabric, snaking in and out of the warp to defy your best efforts in brushing. Your Whippet’s coat may be a lot shorter than your Saint Bernard’s, but there are more similarities than differences once you realize that, at the same cut-short length, the hairs are of almost all dogs are of the same types. Tightness of curl just throws another characteristic into the recommendations for coat care. Classifying haircoat types on the basis of length, the German Shepherd Dog’s is considered to be “normal” or intermediate, compared to the short hair of the Boxer and the long hair of the Newfoundland.
There are a number of reasons for hair loss, but it is an ongoing process that annually has two major peaks, when people are most likely to complain about shedding. At those times, the undercoat is most noticeably affected first, and then the topcoat is lost one or two weeks later, as a rule. It is most obvious in the breeds that are commonly called “double-coated”, although in reality all dogs except the hairless breeds have both types, and even the Xolo, Crested, Hairless Rat Terrier, etc. have a little hair someplace, and those few follicle sites have both types, if you look hard enough. In bitches about two months away from an estrus cycle, the undercoat often is released in great hunks, especially if the bitch is not regularly combed during these months, and is very easily drawn out with the comb if she is groomed more regularly (which, semiannually, may mean at least once a day).
Breeders who have paid attention to something other than their TV sets have long ago learned that the changing length of days (amounts of daylight) is the trigger for these estrus changes in the domesticated dog. There are some primitive breeds and wild canines in which only one estrus a year (or even none until the dominant female in the pack moves on or dies) is the rule, but let’s leave those few out of the discussion for now. You will notice that in the temperate zones, which is where most dog ownership occurs, more estrus events are clustered close to the months of September and March than in late June and the New Year. I believe that is due to the time lag as the dog’s body (specifically its hormone production) adjusts, catching up to the change in length-of-day that happens around June 21 and December 21.
It takes approximately those two months for the dog to go through its photon-induced hair-loss cycle in preparation for its heat cycle. Now, before you excitedly remind me that males go through their own coat-loss cycles, let me say that males also have hormones and also are affected by length of daylight changes, but their hair loss (at least in winter, in my considerable experience, anyway) is not as dramatic as in females. The high summer temperature that many people want to blame is not the cause; otherwise, they’d only lose the insulating undercoat, and not in winter.
The loss of copious quantities of the crinkly-soft undercoat is followed by the considerable loss of harsher straighter topcoat a month later. If you see undercoat loss one month, then topcoat loss the next month while the undercoat is beginning to grow back, and you have kept the dog worm-free, it’s almost certainly the semiannual molting process. Good grooming begins with good nutrition, and worms inhibit the assimilation of nutrients in the inflamed intestines. But all you need for most breeds are three simple, economical tools, so forget all those made-in-China multitudinous gadgets or expensive visits to a grooming shop. Do it yourself.
Undercoat
These hairs of the undercoat vary from short, fine, and wavy (described by some as fuzz or down), to thick, slightly longer, fine and wavy with a small bristle on the tip, to even longer, soft with a slightly more visible bristle and waves in the bottom two-thirds. All three types are best groomed with a good undercoat comb. These combs are usually chrome-plated or stainless steel, but all should have rounded points so as not to scratch the skin, and smooth teeth for low friction, as the wavy nature of the hair is sufficient for the comb to remove the dead strands and not pull too hard on the healthy live shafts. The label may recommend the comb for toy breeds, but as long as it’s sturdy and comfortable to hold, it can be used even on your German Shepherd Dog. Look for a good welding job where the teeth are held in the spine of the comb.
Hold the comb so the teeth are perpendicular to the dog’s skin, or, if the coat is a real mess, slanted a little so the teeth may be dragged like a lawn rake over the coat, but not stuck into it like a shovel. Comb one small section at a time, in the direction of hair growth, using very short stokes — six inches or less. You will usually build up a “bank” of fuzz, fur, and some guard hairs at the end of that section. Pick up the mass of soft hairs with the comb and put that in a bag or pile. When there is not much more fuzz coming up and no drag at all on the comb, even if slightly slanted, move on to the next section and repeat the procedure. I find it best to start near the tail and work toward the head, so you won’t comb into the thick, uncombed areas. It’s more comfortable for the dog that way.
After the entire coat has been combed and you have a hefty pile of wool, go over the dog again, combing backwards against the direction of hair growth, being sure the comb is perpendicular to the skin. Back combing catches undercoat hairs you will miss even with the most fastidious first combing. As long as the combing is not too vigorous, only the dead undercoat will come out. By removing the dead undercoat, you are also cleaning your dog, because a lot of dirt and debris is loosened and removed in the grooming process. Frequent combing will generally prevent this dirt from accumulating, and a regularly groomed dog may never have to be bathed in his lifetime, barring a run through a sewer, skunk’s nest, or herd of goats.
Topcoat
Whether you have to remove topcoat because of internal worms or normal seasonal changes, you will need different equipment than you used on the undercoat. The hard, straight guard hairs (though some are slightly wavy toward the roots) which are long enough to extend through the crinkly undercoat, usually defy combing. The teeth of the comb slide between these hairs, which are held in place not only by the skin, but also by friction or static electricity with the adjacent hairs, so the comb catches only the wavy undercoat.
The dead topcoat hairs lie side by side with the live coat, but because they are not receiving oil from the follicles, are microscopically ragged, and have different resistance to friction. During my employment in the elastomer/polymer industry, I discovered that certain blends of natural and synthetic rubbers have the proper hardness, resilience, and frictional properties to draw out those dead hairs with no pull at all on the live hairs. This rubbing of the live hairs stimulates oil flow, as does bristle brushing. At that time I started marketing a molded rubber item shaped like a thick doughnut, having the exact properties of friction and toughness, and which was ideal as a nearly indestructible toy as well as useful for grooming. I call this “groomer” The Groommaster and still have a supply, but don’t advertise anymore. But you possibly can do as well with the toe of a sneaker, or a piece of shoe sole, if you can find these made from natural rubber. Substitutes made of vinyl and other polymers are not satisfactory.
Holding this groomer or a suitable substitute, stroke the dog firmly in the direction the hair lies. Working from the head toward the tail, once again, work one section at a time, moving on to the next patch only when no more straight topcoat comes out. Unlike combing, use of the groomer does not build up a bank of fuzz unless the dog has not been combed at all and is losing his undercoat. Rather, the stiff, straight hairs of dead topcoat collect in a pile at the end of each stroke. The groomer is also very effective on the throat and other areas where the soft intermediate type hair grows (neither especially hard and long, nor only wavy and long). Use gentle, upward strokes so you don’t make the dog uncomfortable with too much pressure over the trachea.
The third tool is a fine-tooth hacksaw blade. You’ve seen those ankh-shaped curry-comb tools with the ends of the looped blade held in the handle. The main reason I don’t like those, besides the fact it requires something from a store instead of your basement tool cabinet, is that part of the commercial blade is drawn across the coat in the same way a knife is used to cut a rope or a piece of food. However, if you hold the straight hacksaw blade perpendicular to the direction of the lay of the hairs, and drag it (again, like a rake) toward the hair tips (generally, this is from head toward tail or torso toward toes). The fine teeth of the blade grab the split ends of dead topcoat as effectively or even better than the rubber groomer does, and you drag the hairs out from between the live non-split hairs. If you haven’t used the comb first, it’s a bigger job, so comb and get rid of what undercoat you can before tackling the topcoat.
After combing out the undercoat and grooming off the topcoat, clean the dog by wiping him off with a damp towel to remove any remaining static dust and dandruff. If you have a show coming up right away, a lanolin spray might help, but wipe it all off before entering the ring.
© Fred Lanting
The illustrations above are from the author’s book, The Total German Shepherd Dog, but 16 of its 20 chapters are applicable to nearly all breeds: genetics, training, health care, and much more. Another book that you should have in your library is the comprehensive Canine Orthopedic Disorders. Order both at one time, and save on postage: Mr.GSD@netscape.com
Breed Show (SV Conformation Show) Rules, Germany – 1997 version, translated by Fred Lanting
The following rules are enforced in Germany, and offered as a guide to other countries’ clubs.
Breed Show (SV Conformation Show) Rules, Germany
1997 version, translated by Fred Lanting
The club for German Shepherd Dogs (SV) is the parent club of the breed, acknowledged by the VDH and the FCI. For the purpose of the conservation and further development of the breed, the statutes of the SV (delineated at SV headquarters for SV member-clubs) generally and in particular for the handling of the organization, indispensable for the breed, the SV gives the following “breed show rules”. These regulations are to have the effect of law (for members). Continue reading
The 2004 SV/WUSV/FCI Rules for the BH Qualification (Translated into English by Fred Lanting)
The 2004 SV/WUSV/FCI Rules for the BH Qualification
Translation copyrighted by Fred Lanting
COMPANION DOG AND BEHAVIOR/TEMPERAMENT TEST, WITH TRAFFIC SURENESS AND OTHER SPECIAL EXPERIENCE
(Begleithund & Verhaltens Test, BH/VT)
All examinations and qualification events are subject to principles of sportsmanship regarding the performance and behavior of those involved. The execution, demonstration, and evaluation are more thoroughly described below. These regulations are binding for all involved, and all participants have to meet the same performance requirements. One change is that at the BH/VT examination, the gunsureness test no longer takes place. In order to participate in FH, SchH/VPG, IPO, RTP (SAR), Agility, and Obedience events, proof of the BH/VT is required. Authorized to award the BH/VT are SchH/VPG, Agility and Obedience trial judges listed and approved by any AZG-member association. The examination result is to be noted in the appropriate performance record, such as scorebook or Ahnentafel. Continue reading
Let’s Talk Breeding and Training
By Fred Lanting
The title of this article stems from a discussion list or website group in the U.K. with the name “Let’s Talk Breeding”. One of its subscribers said she couldn’t “sit by and listen to foolishness without speaking up.” While the forum is admirably open-ended, “designed to allow all sides of an issue to be voiced”, this gives much opportunity for promulgation of ignorance, spaced-out weirdness, incredible claims, unscientific conclusions, and the like. There is always this difficulty of finding our ways between the extremes of total libertarianism (anarchy?) and rigid governmental-type control. Think of a journey down a fairly broad valley with those extremes being the mountains on both sides. Either you allow all sorts of crazies to speak as loudly as reasoned voices (one mountain range) or you disallow any voicing of opinion other than the “party line” (the other mountain range). The latter is how communist and the equally murderous African/Islamic/Latin/third-world regimes have operated all these many years and only a few of these are crumbling, others rising anew from the lava core of human nature. In this valley, there are many changes of scenery and degrees of slope toward one or the other range.
There are many in this valley who attempt to play the role of peacemaker, and say that “the only way for anyone to make an educated decision is by understanding or at least being aware of the opposing views”. But they (we) often have rocks hurled at them from those further up both slopes. Sometimes the arguments get downright silly and based on woeful ignorance of canine psychology, which is both my subject and forte in this instance. For example, in the UK, there is currently raging a tempest in a teapot over whether dogs should be crated. Ever. Never, say some. They cry that “the idea of crates [is] evil, spaying/neutering unhealthy, and that anyone who uses any type of force other than a cootchie-coo is inhumane”. Of course, many of us have seen abusive conditions in which dogs spend almost all of their lives in crates, and I would side with the activists complaining about that, but the vast majority of dog people using crates (the airlines call them “kennels”) do so wisely and effectively. Crates help train puppies in housebreaking, chewing, and other mischievous activities they would otherwise get into when you are busy with something else. Crates give dogs a “safe place” just like the caves their ancestors used to keep from being trampled on or molested while they nap. Crates keep a dog from being bounced around in a car when you have to brake or turn suddenly. They enable you to take more than one dog with you to training, visiting, and other activities and are infinitely safer than tying the dog up to a tree or lamppost while you exercise or compete with the other dog. The problem is that too many who are soft in the heart are also a little soft in the head, and tend to anthropomorphize excessively, likening a crate to being in some medieval, dank, rat-infested sewer of a dungeon.
One apparent voice of reason reportedly has been banned from one UK site due to “calmly, logically and with research refuting statements that are either erroneous, misleading or have no basis.” I have experienced the same exile or being placed on “moderation” (probation) on one or two e-mail discussion groups that I had thought and hoped were going to be open to differences of opinion, even if slightly strongly worded. I used to be very impatient, but in my 50s I went through a mellow stage. Now, after continually hearing the same foolishness for far too long, I am growing impatient again. Sometimes I feel like saying “Don’t these dummies want to listen or learn?” I believe that is truly the case. In this post-literary age, when TV and Internet and fast-foods and DINKS (double-income-no-kids — or at least no parental supervision of same) have made instant gratification a way of life in even the flood of information we swim in, people have largely abandoned both logic and listening. When was the last time you heard of a school teaching classes in logic? When was the last time you got the impression in a supposed conversation that the other person was actually listening to you and your ideas, rather than just waiting for an opportunity to speak?
The other topics that, strangely, have been occupying the worry-time of Brits and other Europeans are not world famine or peace, but tail docking and the pros and cons of neutering/spaying. One of my UK correspondents (not correspondents!) said that when it was mentioned in some communiqués that puppies and kittens are spayed at eight weeks by some U.S. vets, “there was an outcry that would make you think the world was ending.” Such a reaction is very curious to those of us living in the land of convenience foods and instant gratification, especially coming from a U.K. citizenry that believes docking tails is cruel and anything more than an instant of pain. I don’t hunt with docked dogs, but I have seen many a litter docked, and handled dogs for people who’ve reported repeated injury to some breeds’ undocked tails. I’m not getting into the argument of how damaging it can be to leave the tail on, but I know what I have seen, and the pups that have their tails cut off whether by hatchet, scalpel, or thumbnail (I’ve seen all three!) are no worse off right away or throughout life than dogs that step on a thorn that is pulled out right away. Even if I did not live in rural Alabama, where hunting is a way of life for many and is a needed way to keep certain wildlife from populating themselves into starvation or environmental disaster, I could not go along with those who decry docking for reasons of suffering – it’s a red herring, it’s a non-issue. But the extremists want to ban all hunting with dogs everywhere, even to the point of fines “over there” if your dog catches a rabbit or squirrel. Dogs no longer can work as they were meant to do, if such draconian measures are adopted. And they are. Unfortunately, most politicians are not dog owners and I include the few who allow their wives and kids to have a little foo-foo “dog” on their laps, yet politicians love to make laws that infringe on the lives of others. That’s the definition of the word politics: power, over other people. It’s also the definition of tyranny.
In the U.S., another storm that is always roiling is between the “show lines” and the “working lines” in what is supposed to be the same breed. In the U.K., Australia, and one or two other countries, “Schutzhund” is a dirty word, but in Germany, the U.S., and the rest of the world, it is a major facet of both the dog sport and the proofing of character. Unfortunately, the dichotomy persists despite the efforts of many to bring the two camps together. In the U.S. we have a vociferous and active Schutzhund movement domineered by what I call the “scores-only” mentality. It doesn’t matter greatly to them if the dog looks like a Malinois, coyote, Dutch Shepherd, wolf, or GSD; only how well it performs on the Schutzhund fields is important. On the other extreme is the “show-only” crowd, most of whom are concentrated in the far-out, non-mainstream GSDCA. For the benefit of my overseas readers, I must interject an explanation of these two particular groups before continuing. In the U.S., there are two breed clubs purporting to speak for the breed. Both are members of the W.U.S.V. The voting member unfortunately (by dint of negligence on the part of the rival club) is the GSDClub of America, which is a member club of AKC. The AKC in turn has a “working relationship” with FCI, similar to that of the UK’s “The Kennel Club”. The other breed club is United Schutzhund Clubs of America, which as the name implies, started as a sports club; it held its first conformation Sieger Show in 1990, if I remember rightly. They prefer the acronym USA, although the SV refers to them as USCA. The GSDCA does not adhere to or even acknowledge the international (WUSV) breed standard, while USA follows in almost every footstep taken by the SV, in all matters. It does not have any relationship with FCI (the FCI works with only one national club per country, as if all countries were socialist in which government “ownership”, control, or sanctions is necessary for validity). As a result, GSDCA leadership, or should I say lack thereof, has caused a noticeable shift in average phenotype in “AKC-Shepherds” away from the international look, the dog that is seen almost everywhere else in the world. This slide started in the late-1960s, when we still had many great-looking but “standard” examples of the breed, but also were seeing many unrepresentative examples being given easy championships (and thus breeding status) at shows judged by an AKC coterie of unknowledgeable judges; these were selected from the ranks of Poodle and Bulldog breeders and others who knew how to read the Standard and pass a written test. Today, the stereotypical AKC Shepherd is anything from a last-place finisher to a laughing stock when it is seen competing in international-type shows under knowledgeable, apprenticeship-trained judges.
Anyway, a flap in USA/USCA circles not many years ago was over whether a person should be permitted to breed according to his knowledge and experience, or meet certain artificial prerequisites laid out by “the breed police” (most of whom have an abysmal lack of experience in anything other than training a dog or two toward a Schutzhund title). A controversy on at least one e-mail “list” has been over some members of their community breeding dogs that are untitled (by which is meant the Schutzhund affix). Some of the novice upstarts have gotten all bent out of shape because a few more experienced people have occasionally bred a bitch or dog without the SchH title. Yet some of them would have no objection to breeding a dog that could only place in the last third or tenth, etc., of its conformation class, as long as it had those magic letters after its name. Even if it could only manage a Koerklasse-2. As long as it had good scores in its trials, especially the bitework part. I know of older, well-versed breeders who are much more qualified and able to make good decisions regarding pairings, and who are castigated for using dogs that would certainly be able to earn those titles, but for good enough reasons have not. Some owners feel the rigors of training late at night in all kinds of weather are not worth the effort and would not tell them anything more about their dogs than they can see in daily life. Some of us live too far away from training clubs (I know of some who drive 4 hours one way to go to training, as I have!) and others do not have a decent protection-phase “helper” to work with. But just let a wealthier “scores-only” compatriot send his dog to Germany (whether for minimal training and a “midnight trial” or not), and that dog is accepted by this group!
My argument with the fringe element in the working-dog community is based on the fact that I do train the dogs I keep, but I am not averse to using an untitled dog if it contributes to the breed and my program. I also make sure they have great character, hips, breed surveys, and anatomy. The only person to whom I have to prove anything is myself. I know what I see, am a darned-good dog psychologist and trainer, and a consultant in canine behavior. Nobody was forced to buy my occasional puppies, but those who do have their own option as to titling. Titles are but tools and proofs, but preserving the breed is done by preserving the best genes and combining them wisely. The titles are merely clothing and badges worn by the genes. I use them, but I do not put them above the dog’s inherent qualities. The important thing is the essence of the dog: the genes, not the uniform, medals, ribbons, accessibility to helpers and training clubs, or other paraphernalia. I get pleasure out of producing good representatives of the breed. Any that I sell and claim to be good Schutzhund potentials will indeed be so. Whether my co-owners or customers actually put the titles on them is secondary. Nice, but not necessary. Titles do not change the dog. Repeat: titles do not change what is in the dog’s character or genes. I have competed & trained intensively since 1966, and have won in conformation with clients’ dogs that never should have won because of character or other flaws, and I likewise have seen innumerable working-titled dogs that should never be in the gene pool. I know how to preserve the breed, and it isn’t by using those fakes.