Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 6

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Closed:Straw Poll - History Section

See the poll here It doesn't appear we have a consensus for any of the proposed versions; back to the drawing board. Lets rewrite or discuss particular changes that would make the proposals work. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The lows some will stoop to

I can't help but sit here in total amazement at the lows some will reach to make their point. We now have people signing posts with others names, we have a number of "votes" from names no one has heard of, we have multiple posts with different names tracked to the same IP user, and we have people "voting" with no original thought, just because that is what they were told Ms Barber wanted, as seen with this vote "I support Revision C. because it's the preference of the founder of the breed. K Harris64.12.116.132 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)"

Unfortunately the Wiki community is now being subjected to what many of us have dealt with for 8 years or more. It is disturbing how, what one would expect to be mature adults, can behave. To the people that have truly tried to work on this artcile in a fair and unbias nature; I would suggest that we ignore the immature actions of others that use phoney names, sign posts using others names , attack people, vote because someone told them to, and lie stating they are blocked to rally the troops.

We can not allow the disgusting actions of some reflect on the entire Shiloh Shepherd community. I understand how frustrating it is to try and engage in mature intelligent discussion while others behave this way, but we need to stay out of that gutter.

Jareth, you have been a saint in a sea of insanity, thank you so much for all of your time, you deserve a medal.

I personally think at this time the only resource to a resolution is through arbitration.

ShenandoahShilohs 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If the signature issue is how Sandra explained I will be the first to offer an apology for accusing anyone of signing another name.

ShenandoahShilohs 16:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The error was definitely mine and I am unsure of how it happened while making a post last night. Must have been some transmission error during the "save page", apart from that I cannot explain it as I was unaware until the SandraSS post. I've never deleted anyone's comments intentionally. The error is mine, and mine alone, and for that I apologize. I do however agree with the voting in the straw poll. The straw poll is based on community, not vote gathering. Gwyllgi 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are exactely correct Gwyllgi, we could all go to members of the different sides and tell them to come here and vote and make this a huge free for all, but it still doesn't resolve this article. A Straw poll is designed to get the feel of how real Wiki editors and contributors feel, it is not meant to "gather votes" from outside sources and it is not the determining factor for a resolution.

ShenandoahShilohs 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This question is not meant to have any "tone" to it. Where do the Wiki editors come from? I didn't realize the poll was for them only. Maybe this needs to be made a little clearer. Maybe Jareth should post this above the poll.66.21.156.244michelle

Hi Michelle. I don't think it's so much that the votes are only open to "editors" as we're all editors as much as the weight of the votes is not simply a one user one vote type setup.

Jareth stated this: "Participation in the community is encouraged, of course, but your status as a brand new user means that your vote might not be counted. Please understand that this is a common practice on Wikipedia, and that it is necessary to prevent deliberate misuse of our voting systems. Straw polls on Wikipedia are meant to measure community consensus, and should not necessarily be taken as literal one-member one-vote voting. However, please do make further contributions to Wikipedia, and express your opinion on policy matters. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)".

That's not to say you can't vote, simply that just because someone logs in and casts a vote doesn't mean it swings the direction of the community consensus. Gwyllgi 17:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely it. We usually see these types of things more in deletion debates, but occasionally it happens with a poll like this when someone calls for outside help. We appreciate your opinions and hope that Wikipedia sparks your interest and you go on to contribute, but accounts that show up only to vote for a poll don't lend much weight. If we allowed this, anyone could post on a notable website and flood Wikipedia with meatpuppets, or create multiple accounts and try to influence votes with sockpuppets. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thought, it might be helpful to read the guidelines on polls, information about reaching consensus. Also, since it appears that there is no support for Revision A and there are serious objections to both Revision B and C perhaps its time for another go round at writing the history so that all parties find it acceptable. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That is where the problem lies Jareth, I seriously don't believe the history will be written that will be acceptable to both parties. This has been going on since the end of November, do you think there is a chance it will end? That is why I suggested before, to call a truce and just delete the article. All of this arguing is not doing the Shiloh Shepherd name any good. SandraSS 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure its not. So perhaps all of you should stop and attempt to behave in a civil manner instead of showing consumers this side? Its really not that difficult to stop arguing and attempt to work together. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I will refuse to just *sit back* and allow you to post a FALSE history of my dogs! You can accuse me of ranting, or whatever .. but I intent to protect the public from being fooled into buying mixed breed GSD's for huge sums of money, just because they *think* that they are getting Shiloh Shepherds! We have provided honest documentation here, yet you have continued to reject the truth I know ... Wiki doesn't care about the *truth* What a shame!!! Yet, you break your OWN policies by accepting data from *private* sources (the other 'registries') just because they *claim* to be real!! So one LAST time!!

The Shiloh Shepherd is a *breed* STILL under development!! I have set up strict criteria for the dogs that can/cannot be used to expand the genepool ... local yokel AKC GSD's do NOT qualify to be called Shiloh Shepherds ... even if a few people want to *issue* FAKE papers for such dogs 152.163.100.132 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I signed my name 152.163.100.132 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) but it did not show up ... wonder why?? Tina M. Barber!!! Using my own computer, as I have ALWAYS done .. and not ashamed of my name!!! 152.163.100.132 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Ms Barber,

 Can you please explain how a dog born of ISSR parents and orginally given ISSR papers  and then withdrawn from the ISSR is suddenly no longer a Shiloh Shepherd? Do it's genes suddenly change? If this former ISSR dog is bred to another  former or desended from an ISSR dog why are the puppies not Shiloh Shepherd?
 Saginaw Saginaw 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, lets not start that again. We are not discussing anything that doesn't have to do with the article; please take such questions elsewhere. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tina, the other registries exist; that's not really debateable. Perhaps you could work on how to include your dispute in the article and the other side can work on how to include their side of the dispute? Maybe something along the lines of "After the other registries were formed, the breed founder issued a statement claiming the breed was still under development and that the other registries were using unauthorized outcrossing and thus not producing dogs true to the breed standards" or something similar? We could then include a reference link to your webpage regarding the dispute. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, your getting warmer!! <g> Actually, this "breed" has never been *recognized* therefor it has always been, and continues to be STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT! I am actually doing research to PROVE what that means, since there is so little information "out there" about such things!! Nevertheless ... just to be simple here .. a Doberman *is* a breed, even though it IS "recognized" *now* ... it wasn't when it first started, and it took many decades for it to stabilize before it could have been accepted ... yet we know that the Rott & Greyhound were used in it's creation, so if someone wants to cross Rotts & Greyhounds now & issue papers claiming that they ARE 'genuine' Dobermans, how would the AKC view this? What if they took an AKC Dobe & bred it to an AKC Rott (since this breed *was* in the *original* mix) could they start a "registry" for Dobes & claim equality with the AKC?? Sounds ridiculous? Well, that's how idiotic the idea of "other" registries sounds to us!!

This whole thing is ludicrous! What I am willing to accept is a statement that "other registries" that have chosen to ignore the ISSR rules & regulations, were formed after the turn of the century, and are now issuing papers to dogs that *they* deem worthy of being called Shiloh Shepherds, even if they are just AKC GSD mixes.

Now that's the TRUTH of it all, even if you don't want to accept the fact that truth matters, you can't reject it just because you don't like it!!! If you want proof, then just look at the OFA site .. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/outcrosses.htm you will see many dogs listed as both GSD's & Shilohs that share the same genetic ingredients!! Genes that have *never* been accepted in the *real* Shiloh Shepherds!! If you want to see a litnus test for what is/is not acceptable, why don't you take a look at the rules I established LONG before these people (that now claim to be "registries") even knew that these dogs existed! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm Tina M. Barber (and yes, I tried to log in, but the page claims that I don't have my password right, so I asked <4 times> for a new one .. but got nothing!)

But even ISSR breeders sell their dogs as Shiloh Sheperds, you wrote a book called The Shiloh Shepherd Story: Against the Wind--A Breed is Born and even state in it "The Shiloh Shepherd has documentation like no other breed." But regardless, whether we state breed or breed in development is another story entirely. The history does say "under development since 1974" -- would there be a better way to state that to indicate that the breed is still developing?

I think that line works just fine -- please keep in mind that these dogs started out in my kennel .. some made the grade - others did not .. In order to continue my selection process I set up the ISSR, and dogs that DID meet the requirements were given "Shiloh" papers, the rest were not ... since the process of expanding a genepool properly requires that 400-700 pups be born yearly, I asked others to help me with this program ... but they ALL agreed to follow the strict rules, in order to use MY name. Some chose to break those rules, but still insisted on putting "shiloh" papers on their pups ... then they even went so far as to just cross them with any GSD & continue to use the Shiloh name because people would pay MORE money for "shiloh" pups then they would for mixed breed pups!!

I know it's hard to understand, but in my world a *kennel name* had some merit .. people respected the breeders right to use HIS/HER own name!! However, since there is no "law" to protect MY name (since I left the AKC) these people have chosen to steal it .. and then even flaunt it!! Yet I should not get upset?? 205.188.116.136 21:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article also currently says "As the breed achieved recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium, other registries were formed, as well as a second breed club for these registries." -- that seems to indicate that they were formed at the turn of the century. Does it need to be reworded to make that more clear?

I have submitted exact proof of when they were formed, and will do it again under a new topic .. just to make things easier for newbie readers to follow 205.188.116.136 21:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the ISSR and the SSDCA should be in the first paragraph of the history since they are associated and authorized by the breed founder? Also, it would make it more clear that these were created before the turn of the century.

they were both incorporated (legally) in 1991 ... Karen can supply you with the documentation!! 205.188.116.136

I would think the fact that the other registries follow their own rules would be self-evident -- perhaps we need to say something about them not being affiliated with the ISSR or the breed founder to make that more clear?

I would certainly hope so!!! ;-)

I'm going to work a little on incorporating these ideas into another history proposal (its obvious the two above aren't going to reach consensus). Please comment on my questions and if everyone could bring up any more outstanding problems they have with the section, I'll try to make those changes as well. Hopefully we can come closer to something everyone can agree on. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to agree to anything that clearly presents the truth. PERIOD These dogs are NOT GSD's .... These dogs *are* GSD's http://www.selah1.homestead.com/mymales.html beautiful .. big GSD's & there are dozens of other kennels out there producing as nice/if not nicer dogs .. however ... they don't try to pass them off as "shilohs" Now, *that's* just being HONEST!! Tina M. Barber

Ok, couple of other questions before I have this finished. I read in one older brochure that the Shiloh had been recognized by the FIC in 1990 right before the SSDCA was formed -- am I understanding that correctly? Also, I've read that the ISSR was organized in 1991 and 1992 so the 1991 is correct? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jareth, actually since there are so many "different dates" listed through out Ms Barber's writings, here is verifiable proof of the dates. The SSDCA, its club was incorporated in 1991 and is currently. The ISSR was not incorporated until 1993 and is no longer incorporated.

http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=1821573&p_corpid=1755495&p_entity_name=%49%6E%74%65%72%6E%61%74%69%6F%6E%61%6C%20%53%68%69%6C%6F%68%20%53%68%65%70%68%65%72%64%20%52%65%67%69%73%74%72%79&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%43%4F%4E%54%41%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=1650365&p_corpid=1571122&p_entity_name=%53%68%69%6C%6F%68%20%53%68%65%70%68%65%72%64%20%44%6F%67%20%43%6C%75%62%20%6F%66%20%41%6D%65%72%69%63%61&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

ShenandoahShilohs 23:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Since one of Ms Barber's points being made is that the Shiloh Shepherd is not a breed I would like to make a statement to that effect.

Ms Barber started selling these dogs as Shiloh Shepherds somewhere in 1990, she wrote in her first book that they were recognized as a new rare breed in 1990, she encouraged people to enter these dogs in rare breed shows as Shiloh Shepherds, she encouraged people to advertize these dogs in national dog magazines as Shiloh Shepherds,and she encouraged people to breed these dogs and sell them to the public as Shiloh Shepherds.

People wrote checks for thousands of dollars to Ms Barber to purchase puppies of this NEW BREED. Now years later she denies they are a breed of dog. She goes as far as to tell people that have dogs, purchased from her, and registered by her and her ISSR that they don't have Shiloh Shepherds due to the fact they choose to leave her organization.

ShenandoahShilohs 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If we can focus back on the article again, it is mentioned as a breed in the introduction and the history section indicates that it is still being developed. Of course, that might be said of any breed -- the idea behind (good) breeding is to come ever closer to the breeds standards while maintaing all the proper characteristics and Tina obviously feels there is more work to be done before producing the dog she invisioned. So if we leave that particular part of the article alone in both places, I think that would convey both ideas. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tina obviously feels there is more work to be done before producing the dog she invisioned. exactly!! Once we have established a broad enough genepool. we plan to apply for FULL recognition via a legitimate registry ... at this point, we are still "perfecting" the breed & expanding the genepool! Tina M. Barber

Shiloh's or GSD?

Can we please try to clear up some important facts?? I will try to paint a quick clear picture that explains my position regarding what IS --- ISN'T a Shiloh Shepherd http://www.shilohshepherd.com/brochure.htm PLEASE READ http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm

Then take a look at http://www.genesislongcoatgsdkennels.com/Index.html these dogs are beautiful (I would have been proud to own them) yet they are GSD's .. *not* Shiloh Shepherds! Some of these dogs even carry the "Shiloh" kennel name in their pedigrees! HOWEVER, this breeder is honest, and sells her pups with the proper AKC papers ... like so many of the other breeders have been doing!! Look at http://www.house-barrett.com/index1.htm Here is another honest breeder ... please read what this site says about *that* (LHGSD) *breed* http://www.house-barrett.com/index1.htm

There are a lot more AKC kennels out there too, like http://www.articadogs.com/ that have established their reputation via their *own* name!! They even sell pups for more money they pet Shiloh Shepherds sell for!!! If you take a moment to look at the pictures on sites like http://www.homestead.com/legacygermanshepherds/ you can't help but to be impressed!! Take a look at these dogs, http://www.longcoatgermanshepherds.homestead.com/frontpage.html I would much rather own one of them then a *shiloh* fake!!! They even have their own webring!!! http://h.webring.com/hub?ring=longhairedgerman

Controversies among breeders?? NOT REALY ... but you *will* find a lot of fakes that try to ride off another person's hard work!!! Read this http://www.royalair.org/page1.html then consider the fact that http://www.royalair.org/page.htm is among the most highly respected GSD kennels "out there" ... dedicated to breeding oversized "old style" GSD's since the 80's!!! Just look at these beautiful creatures!!! http://www.royalair.org/page4.htm & she's not the only one .. here's a few MORE http://members.fortunecity.com/falco123/

However, none of these people would even dream of calling their dogs *shilohs* because they are proud of what THEY have done ... and don't need to steal another persons work in order to sell puppies!!! These Reputable Experienced Breeders (REB's) have earned their OWN claim to fame!!!

Now take a moment and look at what I have been striving towards for MY "breed" http://www.shilohshepherds.info/intro.htm Then take a look at the information I have provided to the public about MY dogs http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMap.htm

Take a look at my dogs!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMap2005HistoryShilohShepherd.htm How they started, then as they continued http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMap2005OngoingBreedDevelopment.htm

Read about me http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapAboutOurBreedFounder.htm View the dogs that came home every year ... both breeding & PET quality! http://www.shilohshepherdsinfo.com/30YearsHomecoming.htm

Read about the GENETICS behind the *real* Shiloh Shepherd http://www.shilohshepherds.info/breedingGenetics.htm Then look at some pictures of the *BEST* dogs being produced by the "other" "new" "registries" http://www.shilohshepherds.info/cherryBlossom2004Collage.htm If you showed these pictures to any of the GSD breeders listed above, I bet that you wouldn't like hearing what they had to say!!! It breaks my heart just to look at them .. but then, when I think about the health issues that they are having, and the temperament problems that I have been hearing about ... all being blamed on MY Shiloh Shepherds, because of these "others" that are misrepresenting my dogs ... well .... let's just not go there :>(

Tina M. Barber, breed founder of the REAL Shiloh Shepherd!!!!

Barber writes:"but then, when I think about the health issues that they are having, and the temperament problems that I have been hearing about ... all being blamed on MY Shiloh Shepherds, because of these "others" that are misrepresenting my dogs ... well .... let's just not go there :>(

"

Yes, I do advise you don't go there, there are many documented court cases as well as testimonies from many people that purchased sick dogs as well as dogs with major temperament problems from you. As for bad pictures taken of dogs, we too have many taken from your private shows, so lets not go there either. We all know you will use any platform to attack others, but the intelligent people here can see through your inconsistant facts and contradictions.

ShenandoahShilohs 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE lets not start with the attacks again -- there is absolutely no way you can convince me that a group of adults can't talk about the article without having to point fingers. Tina is concerned about dogs being bred outside her purview, ShenandoahShilohs is concerned about dogs being bred in her purview. Fantastic. This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the article. Lets talk about how to write the article, suggestions for content or rewording the article -- *anything* about the article, but leave all other comments at the door on your way in. THANK YOU! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:36, 12 January 2006

Jareth, can we see what the article is looking like right now? I'm not sure if that's what got chopped up back there by a poster's reply or not. It's hard to make a comment on the article right now when I don't know where we're at. Thanks! NobleAcres 01:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Gloria

Just click the article tab up at the top to see the articles current incarnation at any time. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, I think what NobleAcres is referring to, in terms of "the article" is in reference to your post "I'm going to work a little on incorporating these ideas into another history proposal."

Also:

You had asked: "...couple of other questions before I have this finished. I read in one older brochure that the Shiloh had been recognized by the FIC in 1990 right before the SSDCA was formed -- am I understanding that correctly? Also, I've read that the ISSR was organized in 1991 and 1992 so the 1991 is correct? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

T.Barber responded: "...that's when I went ahead & Incorporated the ISSR (as of July 1991) and the SSDCA, Inc....Tina M. Barber"

You also requested: "Please comment on my questions ..."...:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

PJBJ then said: "Jareth, please click on the following links to see actual documented proof of the dates of incorporation for the ISSR & SSDCA. The ISSR was in 1993, the SSDCA in 1991. Thank you.12.191.34.254 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)PJBJ

PJBJ was providing verifiable information in response to your question and T.Barber's response to your question and T.Barber's statement "as fact" that the ISSR was "incorporated" in July '91. Perhaps it can be agreed upon by all registries to "just list the dates they started operating", however, PJBJ's response is legitimate, since the other editors have no idea what portion(s) of Ms. Barber's posts you are accepting as "valid" for inclusion in your proposal and if you will be seeking input from other contributors, for inclusion in your proposal, prior to presenting it on the Talk page.

Perhaps if you could elaborate just a little about how you are "approaching" the proposal, it would be helpful in alleviating questions we might have MilesD. 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) .Thanks very much.

I'm not sure if you noticed by looking at those links, but the ISSR is no longer incorporated, however, I assume you'd agree its still operating? Are you disagreeing with the fact that the ISSR registered dogs starting in 1991?

I didn't discount PJBJs response at all, simply suggested that might not be the only criteria one would consider when listing the start of operation or the founding date -- and since s/he didn't present anything other than links to a site, I can only hazard a guess as to what s/he was trying to say. And also, perhaps you could try assuming good faith -- its possible that Tina misspoke and didn't mean that in the legal sense of "incorporated" -- from everything I've seen, she's mentioned two dates, one in 1991 when the registry started issuing registrations and one in 1992 when the articles for incorporation were started (incorporation obviously wasn't completed until 1993). I thought it would make more sense to list when the registry started issuing its own registrations, but again, this is just something I'm working on to try to write something for the history that both sides might accept.

I asked for clarifications from Tina for a few points I was researching, as I planned on asking contributors from the other registries if I had clarifications when I got to that portion. This has been the oddest article I've ever worked on -- usually at best we have one contributor actually associated with the entity in the article; to have all these editors from different factions trying to affect the article, its a bit crazy. Honestly, if people are going to start picking apart the history proposal before I even present it, I think I'll bow out and let you those of you who enjoy this bickering back at it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Jareth

YOU SAID Ok, couple of other questions before I have this finished. I read in one older brochure that the Shiloh had been recognized by the FIC in 1990 right before the SSDCA was formed -- am I understanding that correctly? Also, I've read that the ISSR was organized in 1991 and 1992 so the 1991 is correct? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The FIC is just a "registry" that I *thought* could do the job for me, so I contracted with them for my dogs. They are not in ANY position to "recognize" anything!! If you would like to know more about them, I will be happy to insert some proof .. I think the Coton folks have a great site about them ;-)

Some facts about the FIC http://www.netpets.org/dogs/newsroom/akcfss2.html

After I realized that they would not be able to do what I needed done, I just went back to doing it myself .. but I did not know much about computers & kept searching for a program, until I found the TCCP (long story, full details in my book) that's when I went ahead & Incorporated the ISSR (as of July 1991) and the SSDCA, Inc. I am sure that Karen has full documentation on our Learning Center, and I will ask her to share the proper links. Tina M. Barber

Ok, so the FIC was just accepting registrations from Shilohs for a while before the ISSR was started, and the SSDCA and ISSR were both formed in 1991. I was also wondering which year you changed the kennel name to New Zion Shilohs -- I'm going to do more looking through the Learning Center, but I hadn't found that yet. Thanks for the help. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on stepping back & allowing my daughter & Licensed Breeders to keep producing puppies, while I took care of the PR, etc. Zion was Lisa's name, I kept mine but no longer prefixed my pups with it (I used her name since I was passing the torch) Then in Jan 2000 my farm burned down & we managed to move here ... that's when we joined forces again & dubed this place New Zion Shilohs. We live on the same properly, although I have my own "in-law" type of area ;-) For more info, you may want to visit the short page we have on http://newzionshilohs.org/About_Us.htm Tina M. Barber

An in-law area, I have one of those :) Of course, I think my family or in-laws now owns most of the block we live on! Since there's quite a bit of history to your kennels, maybe it would be best to just leave the founding kennel in the actual history section and at some point write a brief section about the founder which could expand a bit more on the kennels history. I think we also need to add something about the future plans for the breed -- we might put it at the end of the history, or if it ends up large enough, give it its own section. I'm working on expanding some of the other sections. I'd really like to see if we can't all work together to get this article to featured article status. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, please click on the following links to see actual documented proof of the dates of incorporation for the ISSR & SSDCA. The ISSR was in 1993, the SSDCA in 1991. Thank you.12.191.34.254 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)PJBJ

   http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=1821573&p_corpid=1755495&p_entity_name=%49%6E%74%65%72%6E%61%74%69%6F%6E%61%6C%20%53%68%69%6C%6F%68%20%53%68%65%70%68%65%72%64%20%52%65%67%69%73%74%72%79&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%43%4F%4E%54%41%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

   http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=1650365&p_corpid=1571122&p_entity_name=%53%68%69%6C%6F%68%20%53%68%65%70%68%65%72%64%20%44%6F%67%20%43%6C%75%62%20%6F%66%20%41%6D%65%72%69%63%61&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

I'm not sure that a registry needs to be incorporated to operate. There are plenty of sole-ownership registries for rare breeds, so I think we can just list the dates they started operating. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, Tina asked me to prepare a time line (with documentation from the first SSDCA newsletter printed in late 1992 and the Origins of the Shiloh Shepherd book, which was written between 1991-92 and printed in 1993). I hope this is helpful to your research, Jareth. Here's the link: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrTimeline.htm Trillhill 04:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Karen, that was exactly what I was looking for. I think I recall seeing the Origins of the Shiloh Shepherd book posted in pdf form somewhere on the learning center, but for the life of me I can't find it now -- it would be nice to be able to link it in the reference section. Of course I've looked at so much lately, I could be remembering wrong .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I say that, I found the links to the PDFs, but do you happen to have the address for the page that links to the PDFS for all the chapters? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for Jareth? http://www.shilohshepherds.info/origins.htm SandraSS 16:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahha! That's the one. Thanks Sandra. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jareth  :)

I, for one, appreciate the time you are taking to research this breed in order to help write a NPOV history section for these dogs. I think you have some good ideas for this article. PLEASE!! Do not stop now!

SandraSS 00:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe you ar making progress Jareth.
Thank you for your patience and deligence with this article. 
As you can see by the many heated opinions that it is important 
for Wiki to persevere and write the truth. That is all the 
ISSR/SSDCA is asking. That the truth be represented. 

70.35.121.154 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Willie Lass

Thank you for taking the time to check the facts out. 67.186.153.43 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele SSDCA member

Thank you so much Jareth for your patience and for taking the time to research all the facts about the Shiloh history so the true history can be represented. 67.189.55.195 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)RoseCity Shilohs LBIT-Shiloh fan Irene

I would like to say thank you also Jareth. The time and effort you have put into this is appreciated.66.157.73.141 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)michelle

History proposal and things still needed

This is the first section of the history so far:

In 1974, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann’s dogs from The Littlest Hobo. After years of selective breeding and genetic research, she seperated her dogs from the AKC in 1990.

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was incorporated. Shilohs were originally registered dually through the FIC and AKC, but after difficulty with standards verification, the SSDCA decided to open the first Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Due to some documentation problems with the original ISSR registrar, a special program was designed by The Complete Computer Place (TCCP) to process registry data for the ISSR. Since then more than 4,000 dogs have been registered with the ISSR. They also maintain a database with over 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various factors within the limited genepool.

For the second section, I still need a couple of pieces of information. Why were the other registries started (NSBR, TSSR, NSBA) -- and please, lets keep this to facts, no attacking. I also need to verify when they were started, I have the NSBR in 2001 and the TSSR and NSBA both in 2002 -- are those correct? Also, the ISSDC was re-started in 2004, correct? Please let me know any additional information you feel should be in the history for these registries -- again, facts only please (dates, etc just like the above). The history section is not a place for controversy; if necessary, we can create a section on the controversy and discuss the two POVs there, but lets please not fight to put it in the history. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This link may be helpful in explaining how/why the other registries began. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/clubsplit.htm Also, this link too http://www.shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm SandraSS 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at those, which is actually how I got some of the dates for the other registries, and I've also seen a blurb about the differences on ISSDCs site [1], the mission on NSBR [2], so I'm assuming it was over a dispute in breeding program standards, but I don't want to put that in and then get yelled at, so I'm asking. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, the other registries are currently working on responses to the questions you have regarding their section of the History proposal and will be able to provide you with this information within the next day or so, if this works for you. Please advise. Thank You. MilesD. 18:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no time limit :) Just trying to get everyone working on something so our poor History section doesn't stay so pitiful :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, Thanks for the work you are doing. Although I haven't spent much time recently on Wiki on this topic, I intend to pay closer attention and help out where I can. Corfil 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Corinne

This, indeed, has been quite an event getting this article to concensus. My only concern, (and this is not inflamatory, just a factual statement as seen via the websites) ....is that the "historical statements" made by the ISSR as to why other registries/organizations/clubs were started will conflict with the actual statements made by the registries/organizations/clubs sites that wrote their actual reasons for leaving. In my opinion, to bring that into the article will only start conflict all over again, as concensus will never be agreed on concerning that arena. If it is to be included, in all fairness, I think it is up to the organizations that left to state their reasons "Why", rather than let the party that took offense to the departure make statements on those reasons. Since there are links to presumed "historical" reasons from the ISSR sites, I thought I would equally leave a link straight from the site of those that did leave, coming straight from the horses mouth with no possibiility for assumptions as to why. Their own personal testimonies and reasons, directly from those that did leave. After all, in reality, only those that left know why they did. So as I am not attacking the other statements from the ISSR site, I would expect the same respect in equally offering the "other side's" statements of "facts".

http://www.shilohs.org/ISSDC/ISSDCPageWhyAreWeHere.htm

These are the testimonies as to "Why were are Here" and the reasons that they left. I would hope that in deciding on what is present in the articles, the direct testimonies would hold more clout than the presumed reasons given by others. To me, that would seem only equitable and fair. Again, this is an attempt to make sure that equality in representation is present in Wikipedia's history of the Shiloh. That is what I am presenting, no attacking, just a link for more information given in the same manner as others have presented. And yes, Jareth, I will agree with all other praises that have come your way, your job has not been easy as mediator for this article, and for the most part, people are growing weary of the battles that seem to insue from trying to gain the "listening ear" ....as quoted from another forums testimony and I quote, "It seems that the Wiki is flowing on "public opinion" ... they pay attention to who screams the loudest (but nicely)" -end of quote- . My hope is that Wikipedia will not listen to those that scream the loudest or the longest but that Wikipedia will represent the Shiloh in a fair and unbiased manner, sticking to the facts as presented by all parties that are equally as passionate towards this breed. Thank-you iamgateway

Well put Iamgateway. If it's deemed by all appropriate that those statements are included, so shall it be appropriate the those that left respond with reasonings. The interesting part of the quote you provided was that it would appear that some have a sense that "The Wiki" (eg mediators such as Jareth) are deciding how this article is written. That is incorrect. WE collectively are writing this article, the article won't be finalized until WE (both ISSR and Non-ISSR) are in agreement. It's not a case of swinging the opinions of a moderator, or winning the favour of a mediator, but rather through constructive discussion attempting to find a point where we are in mutual agreement. Jareth (and before Trysha, and Elf) are our referees (not judge/jury), and are trying to guide our discussion to an amicable resolve. Gwyllgi 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The link you dropped does not answer the question about the origin/dates of the non-ISSR registries. It is linked to a dog club which is for people, not dogs. I thought the question Jareth was seeking data for dealt with dog matters. It speaks to individual decisions, not an organizational formation and purpose.

Also, it is my understanding that Wiki does not permit use of copywrited material without prior permission. When you quote from the forums, without permission, you are violating both the forums and Wiki policies. 152.163.100.132 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Corinne

First, it's "copyright" not "copywrite". I think you'd have a difficult time supporting that quoting a statement on a forum is covered by copyright and not available under the fair use statute. Reference Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Gwyllgi 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More games,eh? .. Well for the record, our private forum DOES have a copyright notice, and anyone joining agrees to it, so *they* are in violation, but the Wiki would also be considered a co-conspirator after the fact,  if stolen  - copyright protected - quotes were accepted.   MaShiloh

Thank-you for that clarification, Gwyllgil. I read Section 107 and, indeed, it would seem you are very correct. --iamgateway 04:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So sorry to have used the wrong word. Makes a big difference huh? Anyway, you still didn't get to the meat of the concern - the organizational reason for being/purpose of the non-ISSR registries.

Regarding Section 107 of the US Copyright law, you honor that but not a document that does have a Copyright from that office? I am speaking of the ISSR Breed Standard. Don't understand how parts of the copyright law are applicable to you and not others.' Corfil 15:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Corinne

I'm sorry, but I don't think that these are "facts" at all ... just opinions .. aka POV and that is not what Wiki needs! I have outlined the dates, and *facts* regarding the "other" "registries" via several sites. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm You can also find a clear time/fact matrix in this article http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registyComparisons.htm If you just look at the charts, they will provide you with all of the basic facts ... if you need to get into more detail, then you need to question the DOZENS of GSD breeders that continue to produce pups with "Shiloh bloodlines" but still register them as AKC German Shepherds!! Here's just one example!http://www.royalair.org/brandy%20%205%20Generation.html Once you have those answers, the rest should be easy to understand!! If you just want "opinions" then be sure to look at what the President of the "new" club wrote not that long ago!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/behindTheScenes.htm MaShiloh 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

One last time ... I don't think that the Shiloh History article should be written about "emotions" .. "disputes" ... etc.. etc... It should ONLY contain PROVEN FACTS!! If you want to read about "emotions" then go to http://www.shilohshepherds.info/behindTheScenes.htm I'm sorry, but I don't think that these are "facts" at all ... just opinions .. aka POV and that is not what Wiki needs! I have outlined the dates, and *facts* regarding the "other" "registries" via several sites. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm You can also find a clear time/fact matrix in this article http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registyComparisons.htm If you just look at the charts, they will provide you with all of the basic facts ... if you need to get into more detail, then you need to question the GSD breeders that produce pups with "Shiloh bloodlines" but still register them as AKC German Shepherds!! http://www.royalair.org/brandy%20%205%20Generation.html Once you have those answers, the rest should be easy to understand!! If you just want "opinions" then be sure to look at what the President of the "new" club wrote not that long ago!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/behindTheScenes.htm Or even better yet, why not read all of the TRUE stories on the http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/shilohWallShame.htm or even http://www.shilohshepherds.com/theRestOfTheStory.htm We even have a fact filled blog!!!

You seem to be confused again, TB, as to what are and what are not facts. These would be facts, http://shilohbuyerbeware.blogspot.com/, because they come from a documented, outside source such as the courts. The judgment for DSS and the dept of ag reports will be up soon. These are also facts, http://search.buffalo.bbb.org/nis/newsearch2.asp?ID=1&ComID=0041000070035199, because they come come from a documented verifiable source such as the BBB. What you wrote is lies and slander from your own pen. There's a huge difference. NobleAcres 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Gloria

http://shilohbuyersbeware.blogspot.com/2005/10/three-cases-of-nsbr-fraud-illustrating.html MaShiloh 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because you wrote it, TB, and put it on your website, does not make it fact. Most of that is libal and slander NobleAcres 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Gloria

Mrs. Barber, In the future, if you want to reply to a post, do not insert your reply within the post. I believe there is a rule on Wikipedia that states that you are not to reply within others posts. As we are minding our manners, please mind your manners. We are trying to bring about our points with equal representations as the sites you are listing, that you wrote. iamgateway

NobleAcres 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Ooops! I think I just did that :-( NobleAcres 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Gloria

How many times is the "shilohshepherds.com" website going to be linked in this discussion? The Wall of Shame - no POV there. Or your viewpoint on the differences in the registries, we might as well ask Rush Limbaugh to summarize the Democrats, it would carry about the same neutrality. I thought the premise of original research and POV has been discussed numerous times here. It would be interesting at some point for someone to add the number of times these links have been thrown in this discussion. The "Facts According to TB" is not what will bring resolve to this article. We can continue this for months on end, or we can try and find resolve. The only one seeming to be dragging "emotion" into this is editor TB with the excessive use of captials, bold lettering, and exclamation points. Gwyllgi 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Noble Acres, It was not you that inserted within my post. :-) It was Ms. Barber, with her reply that began:

 "One last time ... I don't think that the Shiloh History article should be written about "emotions" .. "disputes" ... etc.. etc... " 

Ms. Barber seems to continuously interupt within the posts of other editors, dismantling the content of those editors posts, in attempts to make a point and hide the points of the original post, or so it would seem... because she has been told not to do this prior to this, but continues to do it anyway. iamgateway

Honestly, can I not take the weekend off? Is it at all possible for this bullshit to stop? Someone posts links -- ignore it and post your own. Arguing just starts these stupid fights *again*.

First, there are no rules about how to post on talk pages, just some guidelines -- its better to put your post after others, even if you want to answer point by point, but its not a requirement. I would appreciate it if people would not break up others posts and will move your post if you do so.

Second, in addition to no personal attacks which everyone is delicately skirting, there is also no legal threats. The next person who considers accusing another of slander or libel might want to read that.

Third, http://shilohbuyerbeware.blogspot.com/ is just as POV as any of these other attack pages you feel necessary to lob at each other. I'm a bit tired of one side or the other pretending to have the moral high-ground here. EVERYONE involved is behaving like children -- I don't care how right you think you are, this behavior is absurd.

I once was involved in a splinter. We left the group because of moral differences and yet somehow, we managed to make a webpage WITHOUT attacking the other group -- we didn't even MENTION them. And you know what, the other group felt no need to mention us either. We didn't part nicely, but we managed to behave civily afterwards. Present your facts -- the truth should speak for itself. If you have to attack and smear the other party, does that mean you couldn't get customers standing on your own? If you have differences, all you have to do is state those, hell even dedicate your website to those if you must, but this childish mudslinging makes all of you look like spoiled brats.

I had seriously considered looking into the Shiloh breed as my next dog, but after seeing this behavior from its supporters, I find I'm COMPLETELY uninterested in dealing with any of you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't paint all with the same brush, Jareth! I am a dedicated ISSR breeder that is not heard from often. My dogs speak for themselves. I follow the ISSR vision of the Shiloh Shepherd as I believe that it is the reason that we have these spectacular dogs today. As for history links...if we do not learn from history, then history tends to repeat itself over and over... The ISSR deserves the recognition of being the original and longest standing registry of these dogs so if history is not presented, it does not give newcomers the advantage of knowing that the ISSR has been here from the inception of this breed and will be here indefintely. 161.184.52.19 16:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)VDuttonGuardianKennels

reply to registries questions

JARETH SAID

<< Why were the other registries started (NSBR, TSSR, NSBA) -- and please, lets keep this to facts, no attacking. I also need to verify when they were started, I have the NSBR in 2001 and the TSSR and NSBA both in 2002 -- are those correct? Also, the ISSDC was re-started in 2004, correct? Please let me know any additional information you feel should be in the history for these registries -- again, facts only please (dates, etc just like the above). >>

Tina replies ... as honestly as possible, with links that are fully documented.

All of the clubs history can be found on http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapSSDCALinks.htm

This site details the first "split" item by item .. fact by fact http://www.shilohshepherds.info/clubsplit.htm

The original ISSDC was started by Gary Allison, in 98 he started a registry & many of his members were upset over this event, so they requested an amnesty (to return to the SSDCA) This project was started by Mynde Bunker, and assisted by Barb Cullen http://www.shilohshepherds.info/olivebranch.htm

quote from our site http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapSSDCALinks.htm Amnesty offered (Oct. 1999) All details of the club split were placed in the Learning Center. SSDCA Amnesty Letter (October '99) Please note: the Amnesty Letter Expired on 11/27/99

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Amnesty Letter 

Olive Branch Letter sent to ISSDC members (November '99) Influential letter sent by 3 former members of the ISSDC to ISSDC members encouraging them to take part in the amnesty offer for the betterment of the breed. Please note: the ISSDC/r was disbanded in early 2001 and the USSDC/r (United Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club/Registry) took over the "records". This group never managed to get organized and by 2002 was taken over by the SSBA (Shiloh Shepherd Breeders Association). As of 2004 this group has also been active although the new "registrar" has now taken over the former "TSSR", started in late 2002 by Patti Schaefer and a few former ISSDC/r breeders. For additional details please be sure to read Confusion!

I am sorry if the links don't work .. computers are not my best friends :>(

You can also find a lot of good links in this letter to the UKC. http://www.shilohshepherds.com/letterToUKC.htm

Here is a link to the quick matrix we prepared for the UKC http://www.shilohshepherds.com/issrShilohShepherdTable.htm

This is our most recent article http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registyComparisons.htm It includes a "registry" matrix that lists dates, etc. http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registryComparisonMatrix1.htm

If you have any other questions, please let me know. MaShiloh 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Corinne

YOU SAID ..... Regarding Section 107 of the US Copyright law, you honor that but not a document that does have a Copyright from that office? I am speaking of the ISSR Breed Standard. Don't understand how parts of the copyright law are applicable to you and not others.' Corfil 15:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Corinne

TINA ASKS

I would like to ask a simple question .... If *they* are going to represent a "specific breed" and start a "dog club" for that breed (that happens to have 4 "private" "registries" representing it) SHOULDN'T THEY ALSO HAVE A BREED STANDARD??? I do plan on taking some time to do some web searches regarding this issue ... but IMHO (and from personal experiences with dog clubs for over 40 years) I have to say that I have *never* heard of such foolishness before!! How can you have a *BREED* without a Breed Standard (blueprint) for it??? MaShiloh 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

ATTACK

JARETH SAID

<< We didn't part nicely, but we managed to behave civily afterwards. Present your facts -- the truth should speak for itself. If you have to attack and smear the other party, does that mean you couldn't get customers standing on your own? If you have differences, all you have to do is state those, hell even dedicate your website to those if you must, but this childish mudslinging makes all of you look like spoiled brats. >>

I fully agree, as do most of the ISSR breeders that this is 100% non productive!! However, I did want to point out that on my blog, I was not *attacking* the "other side" ... although (since they were posting *their* blog everywhere) I felt FORCED to answer their false accusations!! Since they left, they seem to feel a need to keep attacking me any way they can .... even with false criminal charges (that were dismissed in court!) that is why I felt obligated to state the truth!! Just like I did in http://www.shilohshepherds.com/theRestOfTheStory.htm MaShiloh 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A Question for Jareth You said that:http://shilohbuyerbeware.blogspot.com/ is strictly a POV site(my intreprtation of your comment), Are not Court Documnets considered veriable information that is not POV?Saginaw 20:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Court transcripts can be verifiable and cited as such. This site, however, doesn't give context nor the complete set of court documents. It does so in order to display a particular POV. Esentially the site is designed to disparage Tina and rationalize someone's use of the Shiloh name. Please don't insult my intelligence. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, Thank you for your answer. Please understand it was an honest question , not something to insult your intelligence. I simply wanted an explaination of you statement. I personally think you will be making a mistake if you do not take a good look at Shilohs even with all the BS attached, They are truly wonderful dogs no matter where you would purchase one.Saginaw 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit out of sorts from the goings on here lately. Court documents are sometimes used as references, but a site which displays them may or may not have an agenda. I agree, they're wonderful dogs and I'm very impressed by the idea of returning to the real GSD, but I'd be very concerned about dealing with some of the breeders I've run in to here -- I'd hate to get on the wrong end of that :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, I understand how the politics and personal animosity between different camps can turn folks off from Shilohs. Although I am now an elected Board of Advisors member of the SSDCA Inc, in 1999 I was very new and just looking for a canine companion. The pictures I saw in the major dog magazines interested me and I began a search online to learn more. I found a BBS on AOL, then several other email lists. OMG!! If this is what "dog people" are like, I wanted NOTHING to do with them or their dogs! I began looking at other breeds but none looked as good as those of the Shilohs I had seen in those magazines. I took another shot at the email lists - all of them and read all the websites and began to learn. The harshness of the people still gave me pause, as you say above, I didn't want to ride the wind and reap the whirlwind. What changed my mind was the dogs themselves. I saw them in person, a lot of them at once and they captured my heart. I have two now, both males. Jareth, don't deny yourself the wonder of a Shiloh because of the words of people. You will never experience the oneness that is possible with another species in quite the same way as you can with a Shiloh. They talk with their eyes and connect with your heart and soul.

I've had other dogs throughout my life, but none have taught me the joy that Charley and Danny do. It is a dual committment of growing together as partners and friends. It is about a love freely given and shared with another being. Not merely a dog - but a SHILOH - it is about the dogs, Jareth - give them a chance to speak to you.

Corinne Corfil 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jareth, I have owned dogs all my life and they were my first love since five years old. I was truely blessed in 2001 with a magnificant and gorgeous Shiloh Shepherd named Kody, then came Bear, and Nieko within a year. I have to tell you Jareth, I have never been so in awe and connected to another breed of dog or animal as the Shiloh Shepherd. These dogs truely can capture your heart and bring you so much joy, so much that one can't put it into words. Please don't sign off Shilohs because of the tribulations you are witness to here. I have folks come to my house about six times a month to see Shilohs in person and they too cannot believe that there is a dog that is so gorgeous and so winning in personality. Two of my Shilohs are therapy dogs and the joy that they bring to people is unmatched, Kody was the favorite at a nursing home in Bothell because of his beauty, outgoing nature, and general goofiness. I have seven Shilohs now and all of them respect Kai, my two year old son, and will perform their obedience for him. Shilohs are magnificant and noble creatures while possessing a sense of humor and incredible intelligence at the same time. You have to see one in person to appreciate a Shiloh. www.SolaceShilohs.com Laura Kathryn

Jareth,

This is a story about one of my Shilohs, Adam, whose portrait (at Antietam battlefield) has graced this article since Jeff Bragg originally wrote it in July 2003. My family and I used to vacation at Gettysburg every year; and Adam accompanied us from 2000-4. There was a time, with all of the photos I took of him standing on boulders and by monuments, that other tourists would point him out as the posing dog. Where ever he went, virtually glued to my side whether on or off lead, (and we went all over both the battlefield and the town) he caused a stir.

Although told in the present tense, this story took place in 2002.

Wherever we go, people ask what kind of dog is that? A wolf? A shepherd? A malamute? A police dog? A seeing eye dog? (He's with you because you need him, dear, right? He's your seeing eye dog.)

Today however, the curiosity worked to our benefit. Jim has taken upon himself the Herculean task of taking pictures of every monument and battlefield marker on the field. He thought he would be able to do the three days in three days, but we've spent Wednesday, Thursday and Friday on Day 2 and still have not gone past Devil's Den...in other words, for those not educated in Gettysburg minutia we are probably not even half done-and this with spending probably a total of 15 hours over the past 3 days (between trips to York taking Artus to the vet to do his "thing"...) trying to cover Day 2... Today we got a late start (due to the 4 hour round trip to York)-but Jim thought we would at least be able to cover the Devil's Den area and the Loop (Wheatfield) and return home around 7...but first he wanted to take pictures of a couple of monuments that were way off the beaten path, just before the Big Round Top area. Adam loves to hike-loves to go in front and lead the way, carefully sniffing the ground and occasionally the leaves of bushes on either side... He will look back periodically to make sure that I'm doing ok and today would stop and wait for Jim to catch up in the rear before forging on. (Poor Jim didn't get to rest because as soon as he would catch up, Adam would start up the path again). He got us to the two monuments-we took our pictures. Adam even got into the act and found a marker on his own, sniffing it out.

I didn't want to go back the way we came because it had rained and I was afraid the ground wouldn't be firm to go down hill at a relatively steep grade. Adam (not on his leash now) went over to the path which continued on, nodding his head and pointing at it. I said to Jim, let's follow Adam. And off he went to the continuation of the trail (too narrow even for horses), again proudly leading the way, waiting for us to catch up and then forging on. Jim however was sure that he was leading us away from where we needed to be to again reach the road and thought that we would be coming out of the heavily wooded area (with huge boulders, wild vines and thorns) too far away from his truck. So he took matters into his own hands and took the lead from Adam. Adam reluctantly left the path although he did try to head back a couple of times, but would not leave me. Over huge dead tree trunks, across the creek (several times), we wandered as Jim tried to head toward a clearing, always heading towards the left...(Adam was trying to go to the right)...Gigantic boulders, huge drop offs-we had to detour several times.

At last we reached the edge of the woods. We were in a field and in the distance we could see a farm building. There had to be a road and since Jim knows Gettysburg like the palm of his hand, we were sure we would be coming out close to the Wheatfield Road and would be able to trace our steps back to the truck. We followed the long driveway to the road, which wasn't marked and ended up on Ridge Road...Then Knights...Jim wanted to go on Round Top Lane but I talked him out of it (good thing too as it just looped back eventually to Ridge). He refused to ask anyone for directions and insisted that the next intersection we came to would be Wheatfield Road...but it wasn't.

We were in suburbia not the battlefield. And a windy suburbia at that. Two people with a huge dog (who walked very closely at my side). It was after 5--we had been lost for 2 hours. The sky overhead was threatening rain and we had no umbrella and two expensive cameras. Jim was starting to become very tired. But he still refused to ask directions of the numerous drivers passing us.

Then-a car stopped in the middle of the road and a woman asked us what kind of dog Adam was. I told her a Shiloh Shepherd and she wanted to know more-she thought he was a magnificent dog. We mentioned that we were lost and asked how far it was to Wheatfield Road-it was a mile away and from there several miles to our truck. She asked if Adam would be ok in her car-I said yes, he jumped in and immediately settled down and we told her about Shiloh Shepherds for the next 10 minutes as she drove us to our truck. As soon as she stopped the car, he jumped over the back seat and walked out with me...Saved by Adam!

The intelligence, the nobility of these dogs-what a job Tina did in developing them!

Almost four years later, Adam is still here, curled up beside me, which is exactly where he wants most to be. Despite the "wars" Shilohs are worth it. It's the people involved (myself included) who are often not worthy of these magnificent dogs. Trillhill 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes the dogs are all why we stay. While they are dogs, there is just something every special about them. Shepherds themselves are know for their intelligence, but Shilohs go beyond that. There is a bond that is like no other. Pictures and meeting them were nice, but it didn't nearly prepare me for what was to lay ahead. I am a very lucky person and get to spend my life with my dog. She is always there with me. She is not just my dog, but my friend, and second arm and leg when need be. It's something you must experience to truly understand.67.186.153.43 10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

My story is like that of many of the other Shiloh owners. I started out breeding and training GSD's 30 years ago (I guess its getting closer to 40 now) and got discouraged with the increasing number of GSD's with hip problems. I also did not like the unnatural look of the steadily increasing angulation. I got so discourage that I quit breeding them and consecrated on training. I continued to train dogs and went from one breed to another constantly searching for my perfect working dog. Then one day while researching different training techniques I happened to come across the ISSR Shiloh Shepherd.

My first reaction was that this is nothing more than a GSD, but after further research I realized that these dogs were the vision that I always had for my GSD's but never had the dedication to work toward. You see, I grew up with Bullet, Rin Tin Tin, and later London and always dreamed of owning one of these dogs but thought that they only existed in the movies, until I met my first Shiloh. I am now at the age that I should be thinking of retirement not of getting involved with a new breed of dog. My wife reminds me of this every time I mentioned these dogs that I had been reading about. I read about an event that the owners of these dogs called Home Coming and decided to go just to attend one of the training seminars ( I am always interested in new training methods) and to see if these dogs were all that they were cracked up to be. I found that they were more. When I arrived one of the owners handed me one of their dogs and my love affair began.

Until I actually worked with one of these dogs I could not understand why anyone would put up with all the rules regulations and restrictions involved with these dogs, invest thousands of dollars, and spend years working with the breed before you were even allowed to breed them. Then once you were allowed to breed you had to get your breeding approved by the breed founder before you could have a litter. Then once the puppies come there is the expense of meeting all the requirements that the breeders contact calls for and if your lucky you might break even. This was nothing like when I was breeding GSD's. I could just go out get 2 GSD's have puppies and sell them as AKC GSD's for what ever I could get. But after dealing with the breed founder for a while I realized that it was because of the lack of control over the breeding that the GSD's turned out the way they did and I did not want to go through that again. So to make a long story short I was hooked and if this meant putting up with all the political crap to make these the best working dogs on the planet so be it.

I now own 2 ISSR Shiloh's and understand why the breed founder is as passionate as she is about these dogs. I have seen this passion spread through out the ISSR breeders and can honestly say that I have never met such a dedicated group of people. I have already spent thousands of dollars preparing for my first breeding which may or may not happen by the end of the year. But, regardless of weather my breeding is approved this time around or not the investment was well worth it just to be able to share my life with the magnificent dogs. - Michael Kerr

That's it!!!

Mike Said ...

<< This was nothing like when I was breeding GSD's.

That's when it hit me!! The answer to all of these "fights" that have been going on for so long! Most of the people that just can't get with the program have the old BYB mentality! It's no wonder that they rebel against the ISSR rules ... why they call me the dictator etc. They just want to have pups & get money ... they have no desire to improve/perfect this breed ... they thought it was a done deal that's why they keep rejecting the fact that these dogs are STILL under development :>( MaShiloh 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)