Requirements for Breeding in and outside of Germany.
There has been some heated discussion recently (late 2005) about clubs in the UK, USA, and Australasia adhering to the rules of the SV, the perpetual extending of the SV's "deadlines" to conform to world Standards, and allied topics. A Körung classification is required for registrable breeding in Germany, and it has always been encouraged for other members of the WUSV. If I may, I'd like to offer (my translation of) the rules as they pertain to a couple of the key arguments or statements in the current exchanges; I am sure these will clarify the matter in the minds of some of the people who've been in the middle of the discussion:
A busy (vocally, but not otherwise active in dogs) e-mailer from Australasia, who has incidentally ignored my translations of the Zuchtordnung (breeders’ rules) and other SV documents, has made some more erroneous statements lately. One was, “in Germany, a GSD can be bred… doesn't NEED to undergo a Körung…” That is not true. As you will read below, in excerpts from my translations (found on several websites), GSDs there need a qualifying result in a breed survey in order for their offspring to be registered as purebred GSDs. And in order to get that, they need a tattoo, DNA, working title, AD, and approved hips (“a”-stamp or equivalent). Normal elbows will be added soon.
That same Internet contributor of arguments said, “…in Australia, Britain, N. America and New Zealand it needs neither SchH nor a Breed Survey classification before being bred”. That is true to the extent that he means “…in order to get listed with the major dog registry of that particular country”. Unfortunately, the SV/WUSV plays footsies with such entities as the AKC and other non-FCI members instead of favoring those clubs that adhere to the SV’s own rules and standards, such as USCA. (See my website article on “Different Dog Organizations” such as found on www.SiriusDog.com and other places.) To honestly claim the name of German Shepherd Dog, such requirements really should be met.
That Kiwi also quoted “a long-standing member of the SV… who has been in our breed for more than 40 years”, saying, “her beliefs are the same as mine as to what the SV requires for litter registration.” Unfortunately, the lady he quoted did not have the rules handy and would not be talking with an SV official for another month. He (or they) were mistaken in those ideas, as a reading of the rules in either language easily shows. By saying, “The best I, as a non-speaker of German, have been able to do in the absence of anyone telling me where the SV's own litter-registration regulations are available is to refer to the USCA web-site”. Although I seldom use Google, I’m sure that a brief search in the right locations would easily have turned up my English-language rules (USCA does not carry them, to their loss). If any website manager still cannot find them, and would like to carry my translations of the Standard, breed survey, breeding, and IPO/SchH rules, you can e-mail me at email@example.com and I’ll be happy to send them for your site.
The man also says, “except for the USofA), the bite-work aspect of DogSport is severely frowned on by politicians and kennel controls”. He should not have excepted the U.S., because Americans have a really enormous headache with local and State dog laws being written by non-dog-owning politicians. In the U.S., there are a multitude of anti-dog, breed-specific laws that overwhelm the dog owner associations that have to use their own money to fight those unconstitutional and false-fable-based laws one at a time. The AKC (what he might call a “kennel control”, I’m guessing) has been anti-dogsport since the mid-1980s at least, and only recently has allowed some clubs to practice schutzhund without being thrown out of the AKC (small loss though that would be!), as long as they do it nearly out of sight.
SV Rules for breeders and registration (Fred Lanting translation):
For the purpose of identification, the puppies are tattooed in the club’s district. Tattooing them is a requirement for registration in the “studbook” (official SV records of GSDs, also known as “breed book”).
4. Breed Value and Breeding Requirements
4.1 Breed Value
4.1.1 Dogs Admitted to the Gene Pool
To be allowed breeding rights in the SV system, all dogs must be entered in the studbook, and possess on the date of mating a training degree such as SchH 1-3, IP 1-3, HGH, or an equivalent acknowledged training degree, obtained under an SV judge [that applies to German-resident dogs]. The SchH or IP title must include a score of at least 80 points in phase C (protection). In addition, at an SV conformation show or breed survey they must have the breed evaluation of at least “Good”, and have both the “a” stamp for hips and a DNA archives number marked in the Ahnentafel. The DNA record is essential for dogs born after July 1, 1999. For dogs bred in foreign countries, which are to be bred in Germany, the DNA information is required regardless of their whelping dates. Two classes of breeding animals are hereby distinguished.
4.1.2 Dogs “Suitable” (Allowed) for Breeding
Dogs suitable for breeding are those that get classification 2 (Körklasse-2) at an SV breed survey.
4.1.3 Dogs “Recommended” for Breeding
Dogs recommended for breeding are those that get classification 1 (Kkl-1) at an SV breed survey.
4.1.4 Dogs Not Qualified or Suitable for Breeding (not allowed to breed — to have registrable offspring)
- not meeting the requirements under 4.1.1 to 4.1.3
- dogs from the working dog records of the SV (a classification of working dogs not necessarily purebred or breedworthy but that are actively in service)
- dogs with the following defects:
- poor/weak in character, biting and nervous dogs
- known “severe HD”
- unilateral and bilateral cryptorchids
- incorrect ear and/or tail faults
- any deformities
- tooth faults as follows:
- are missing:
- 1 premolar-3 and 1 further tooth
- or 1 fang
- or 1 premolar-4
- or 1 molar-1
- or 1 molar-2
- or any 3 or more teeth.
(The absence of the molar-3 is of no consequence if such dogs have the original presence of the tooth proven and confirmed on the Ahnentafel.)
- considerable pigment faults, also blues
- long-coats, with or without noticeable undercoat
- tooth (bite) faults: more than 2 mm overshot*; undershot
- over- and/or undersize by more than 1 cm: Males 66 cm / bitches 61 cm max. (Kkl-2 is possible if over 65/60 cm but not over the maximum.)
- bitches that have given birth three times with Caesarean (C-section)
- the pectineus muscle having been cut
- Surgical operations on a dog for the purpose of correction or for acquisition and/or improvement of a breed survey (examples: ears, tail, teeth, testicles) will result in a breeding prohibition and legal proceedings against the owners.
The breeding value of dogs described under 4.1.4 listed dog is considerably limited. They are not to be used, therefore, for breeding. Should there be any progeny from these dogs, they are ineligible for entry in the studbook of the SV. The owners of these dogs are informed by registered letter about the decision, regarding the uselessness to the breed, immediately upon being known to the breed book office. Objection to the decision is possible 14 days after delivery, at the latest. If there is an objection, the studbook manager decides in the first instance, and in case of further objection, the SV president or the Chief Breed Warden makes the definite, final decision.
Under 4.1.5, there is this statement: “Inbreeding closer than 2-3 or 3-2 (including with siblings of those dogs) is not allowed. (Linebred 2-3 is the maximum.)”
And, this additional was published by the SV in the SID Issue #1, Jan. 2001 as
- “Der Zuchtausschuss informiert” (Fred’s excerpts and editing/revising of original translation by Susanne Stramm; Note: IPO rules replaced slightly different SchH rules):
9. Only animals that are strong, healthy and not genetically defective, and that are representative of the breed may be used in breeding. They must also be in accordance with the breed regulations. Admissible are all dogs that are registered in the SV breed book who, when they are bred to, have a title in accordance with the Trial regulations (SchH/IPO 1-3, passed with a minimum of 80 points in C, or HGH or an equivalent), have received a show rating of G (minimum) at an SV show, have the “a” stamp and have a DNA registration number. In addition, the HD breed value may not be above 100 (the average of the two dogs’ HD ZW). Dogs that have been bred in a foreign country must also have proof of a "DNA tested" stamp, and must show promise to be good for the breed with respect to temperament.
10. When used for breeding, males must be (on the day of the breeding) 2 years old. Females must have completed their 20th month (when first used for breeding).
And on January 1, 2002, this became effective:
“Furthermore, dogs born after 1 July, 1999 must have a DNA verification (proven ancestry). Dogs that have been bred in a foreign country and are to be used in breeding in Germany must also have the DNA verification regardless of the date of birth. Blood samples will no longer be required — a cheek swab, as is done in the U.S., will be acceptable. This can be done at the time of tattooing, for example.”
The above may be reprinted. Please remember to give proper credit for the translation by SV Auslander judge and author of The Total German Shepherd Dog, Fred Lanting, www.MrGSD.com
Part of the recent Internet discussion that I referred to earlier quoted from a speech made by a former SV officer and chief körmeister, Helmut Buss, on the occasion of his judging in England early in 2005. Some of those observations may be pertinent to this article’s main thrust of breeding requirements.
Buss said, “…emphasis is being placed on the German Shepherd as a 'sport' dog, where the owners involved are not interested in breed type so long as the dog works to a high standard. This cannot be the right attitude.” He is quite right. There is far too much linebreeding in both the working-lines and the hochzuchtlinie (“high-lines” or “showdogs”). Otherwise brilliant Helmut Raiser shot himself in the political foot when he intimated that we should crossbreed Malinois into the GSD family to improve high-scoring performance. But we definitely should be mixing the better-working show dogs into the BSP-competition bloodlines, and the better-structured working-line dogs into the show-dog bloodlines. Judges and körmeisters also should be tougher on which showdogs get the “pronounced” description at the courage tests.
“Of the highest placed males [in 2004], 44% of them were Ursus sons or grandsons, and this is unhealthy for the gene pool.” Indeed! That is why the use of such dogs as Ando Altenbergerland, Orbit Tronje, Timo Berrekasten, and their offspring should be encouraged by placings in the show rings as well as in verbal recommendations and breed warnings by judges.
Buss also said, “many people are not able to do schutzdienst and some do not want a schutzhund dog.” Quite true. They should be allowed to own a dog that is listed as a GSD, but if it does not conform to the breeding requirements, its breed name should not be inherited by any offspring. There are many “pet homes” for longcoats, as there are for non-titled, non-breeding GSDs.
“DNA tests must be done”, he said. I’m sure he felt a pang in his heart when he said that, because his magnificent and valuable-to-the-breed Hoss Lärchenhain failed to get a VA because DNA had showed his ancestry to be not what it had been represented to be on paper. He also said, “The Sieger Show must be seen to be judged honestly, as Germany is becoming a laughing-stock”. That also must have been hard for him to say, because he had been accused of violating that principle himself at the 1999 Sieger Show, following which he got kicked out of his jobs as chief judge of females and körmeister. When I ran into him again at the 2005 show, he immediately brought up the fact that I had reported on his fall and the charges made, and seemed to blame me for his falling out of favor with the SV (which happened well before I had said anything about the reported scandal).
As David Payne in the UK says (I slightly edited his comments), “I would strongly advise that all SV members who live in Australia… write to Wolfgang Henke, president of the SV & WUSV. Send an email to his attention at: firstname.lastname@example.org and ask very simply and briefly, "How does the SV view the situation in Australia, with particular regard to the GSDCA/ANKC negative attitude and behaviour towards Schutzhund?" To that I would add a recommendation that people in other countries also put the pressure on the SV to stop dilly-dallying — to crack down on such organizations as the GSDCA/AKC, the GSDC of Canada/CKC, as well as the UK’s Kennel Club and GSD clubs in Britain, which have been sidestepping the so-called requirements for too many years already.
The SV-WUSV has also been far too reticent to protect the name and nature of the breed. What they should have done a long time ago (and it’s not too late) is to take over the registration of all German Shepherd Dogs, possibly even as far as supporting legal moves to deny using the name or any international recognition to any dogs not fitting into the Standard description and breeding regulations. If that is too big a chunk of meat to swallow, they could at least deny recognition to the GSDCAmerica and GSDCCanada. Since AKC will never bow the knee (nor will CKC or The Kennel Club of the UK curtsey), the WUSV should pressure FCI to exclude GSDs from recognition as AKC (etc.) breeds, and recognize the GSD only if registered with the WUSV. The efforts of the SV to persuade such independent countries’ dog registries (such as the above-mentioned) to adhere to a unified Standard of anatomy and performance has failed, and will always fail, unless some stronger measures are taken.
So, when you write to the SV, express your thoughts on separate (non-AKC/CKC/ANKC/KC/etc.) status for clubs that are willing and eager to conform to the world standards. Tell Herr Henke that there should be full recognition/registration of purebred GSDs who meet the WUSV standards regardless of whether or not they have affiliation with those non-compliant national registries.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of SiriusDog.com, the staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.