shortstep

I think I may have found the reason people DNA test Bob tailed dogs for the Bob tail gene. It is so they can prove the dog was not docked. Peae correct me if I am wrong.

Which breeders do you think are trying to make other sections look bad? And why do you think that? Is that the fault of the breeders? If so, what gives you that impression? Something "show breeders" have said, or written? Where? Or something which has been said or written about them? Or are you talking about attitudes perceived from reading this forum? As I said in my post 'This can all apply to any group of dogs breeders or even individuals.' So that would mean all groups of breeders can be guilty of doing this. I have no idea why Jemima did not do a Designer Dogs Exposed instead of Pedigree dogs exposed. I have no idea why McGreevy did not do a 10 point plan for commercial dog breeders (puppy farmers) and instead did a 10 point plan for pedigree dog breeders. It is a sprial that is out of control and I do think we can handle things differently some of the time which might help and much of the time what we are doing is really not helping. We..that means everyone, at least need to try to stop breeder bashing, that is my opinion. Obviously not everyone will agree and simply sugesting this will get me bashed by some, but I am hopeful that some people including myself will try a little harder not to do it so much.

Jed I am confused again, sorry to mince words around but I want to understand exactly what you are saying. When you say only one gene was introduced, you mean they were only after one gene from the corgi? Or do you mean that after the generations have now transprired, that there is now only one corgi gene left in the boxer? Or something else again? LOL

Here is their explanation ON THE ISSUE OF POINTER RELATED DISEASES One and only one AKC registered Champion Pointer was used to form the Dalmatian Pointer cross to introduce the canine dominant normal uric acid gene . As far as can be determined, Dime - the Pointer - was healthy, and specifically did not exhibit any known or outwardly recognizable health defects. Those individuals concerned whether this one Pointer may introduce untoward health problems in the Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer cross may consider the following reasoning why that should not be a significant concern. 1. Since only one Pointer was used, that individual contributed only one gene copy (of his two copies) to his Descendants. The other gene copy for any trait, healthy or unhealthy, originated from the Dalmatian dam (Lady Godiva). As they say, "it takes two to tango". If the gene from the Pointer coded for a dominant health problem then all of the progeny would exhibit that. Neither the Pointer nor the progeny are reported to have exhibited any dominant health problems. If the Pointer carried and contributed a recessive gene to his progeny, then again, "it takes two to tango" and the other copy must have come from the Dalmatian lineage, especially since in subsequent generations only Dalmatians were used. The resultant "disease" if evident (none have been evident to date after 12 generations of breeding) would have originated just as equally, if not more likely, from the Dalmatian than the Pointer parental lineage. 2. Of the ~350 known canine diseases, the large majority exhibit a polygenic inheritance pattern. A few diseases, like the Dalmatian specific uric acid defect, follow a single gene inheritance pattern. After 12 generations of breeding, it is known that about 0.02% of the DNA of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross Descendants is not the same as AKC registered Dalmatians. We know that this small percentage includes three genes on chromosome #3 that are closely linked, and one of those is responsible for normal uric acid metabolism. The others are thought to be so-called housekeeping genes that deal with intracellular processes only. The selection pressure placed by the breeder's choices over the 12 generations selected for these three closely linked genes, and not others. Whether the residual DNA even codes for other genes, and whether those genes may or may not code for health problems per se, is unknown. However, the likelihood that this small amount of residual Pointer DNA codes only for a unique Pointer breed related disease is quite low. If that were the case, the disease would either have to be dominant (which is extremely unlikely as discussed in #1), or the disease would have to be recessive, in which case the Dalmatian lineage would have had to contribute the other genetic component. 3. Current Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross are at the 12th generation. In the 12th generation, the Pointer is one of 4,096 dogs, thereby contributing 0.0244% of the genetic material in that generation to the next generation - the 11th generation. From the perspective of the entire 12-generation pedigree, the Pointer is one of 8,190 dogs and contributes 0.0122% of the genetic material to the progeny. These percentages appear miniscule when framed in comparison to the sire and the dam of a litter that each contributes 50% of their genetic material to their get. 4. If the Pointer were carrying a recessive health defect, and if the LUA/HUA Descendants carried that defect forward, then the only way that it could be expressed is by breeding a Descendant to another carrier. If breedings in successive generations only to AKC registered Dalmatians produced a recessive defect or disease, then it is at least equally attributable that the recessive trait originated from the Dalmatian parental lineage, if not more so given the overwhelming percentage of AKC Dalmatians in the pedigree versus the single Pointer. 5. Breeding an LUA Descendant to an LUA Descendant is one theoretical way to uncover a recessive gene carrier. Again, only one Pointer was used, so you would have to theorize that the Pointer contributed the exact same recessive gene copy to every one of his get. That may or may not be true. If one used identical twins (which have never been produced) it is theoretically possible to have the exact same copy culprit recessive gene passed to the get. The mathematical probabilities become even more unlikely when one considers that most canine diseases result from multiple genes - polygenic inheritance. The same Pointer - the only Pointer ever used - would have had to contribute the exact same copy (recessive, diseased) of each of the genes responsible for a specific health defect, to each of his get, and those get would have to be mated in order to make the homozygous condition to produce the disease. The odds are extremely unfavorable for that to happen. Such a mating has never been done. 6. Matings of 12th generation LUA Descendants to produce the 13th generation LUA progeny, even if done as LUA x LUA, puts the Pointer as 1 of 16,382 dogs and results in 0.006% of the genome originating from the Pointer. The likelihood of passing any relevant genetic material that may cause disease from the Pointer is approaching zero in this scenario. If one gene (out of the estimated 20,000 canine genes) spontaneously mutated and caused disease, the chance could be estimated as 1 in 20,000 or 0.005%. Thus if an unanticipated disease presents in the 13th generation (or higher) Descendants, the attribution could be equally argued to be the Pointer, spontaneous mutation, or chance alone. 7. Lastly, it is important to point out that LUA/HUA Descendants at the 12th generation may have significant common ancestor effects. Depending on the pedigree, there can be as many as 50 crosses to popular sires such as CH. Coachman's Chuck-A-Luck and CH. Count Miquel of Tuckaway. From the perspective of estimating probabilities on pedigree analysis of specific traits (healthy or unhealthy), these popular ancestors may have up to a 50 fold chance of impacting that trait than a single ancestor, or in particular the single Pointer that is 12 or more generations back in the pedigree. The national Pointer breed club has recently completed a national health survey and when those results are available they will be posted on this website as well.

Oh this is bit of a stretch for me, but I think it is like this. Most diseases are homozygous (change this to Poly meaning needing several or many genes to be present for the disease to be expressed), so unless the dog is affected (has all the genes required for the disease to be expressed) then the off spring cannot have the disease and neither can any of the future offspring of that dog all the way forward into the future of other breed. If you use more than one dog for the cross, then you increase the chance that they will bring along the other genes needed to match up with the other cross dog and then the disease has all the genes needed to be expressed forward into the new breed. The risk would go up with each new cross dog used. I just changed it to Poly, sorry it is multiple genes.

No kidding, she is going to use what ever she can to make purebred dogs and their breeders look bad. But when she hands you a gun you do not need to point it straight at your foot and shoot eh? We can be very much smarter. For example instead of the man saying they are not purebreds and should not be in the ring and he will be mad if (the healthy dog) wins (beats the sick dogs). Instead we need to use words carefully. And stop the constant bagging of other breeders, and this really is another example of that rearing it's ugly head again and again it brings grief to the show folks. Perhaps saying instead, 'It is an exciting time in the dog breeding world and the bright future of purebreds has much offer'. Anyway moving on, it really is an exciting time for dogs and dog breeders.

I am confused. Are you saying it's alright for certain groups to say they're better than other groups of breeders so long as they don't say those other groups are bad? To me it is all about, Stop trying to build your reputation as a 'good' breeder by trying to make other breeders look bad. If your dogs and your breeding program are of real quality then your dogs will do it for you. Right now the show breeder section of the kennel clubs and bringing along with them the rest of the kennel club breeders are under very dangerous and direct fire. A little humility might go a long way right now. But feel free to attempt to alienate every other group of dog breeder out there, even those in your own registry. So far this has not brought other breeders over to your line of thinking, will see if it gets you what you want in the future. So far it has proven to have just the opposite effect, as there are more and more breeders everyday pulling away for the show breeding ideas. This can all apply to any group of dogs breeders or even individuals. Only qualification would be that the other groups for the most part are not under attack just yet. You know how negative political campaigns, where they go around bagging the other side endlessly, for the most part a real turn off to voters. Instead those who focus on what they have to offer, what they plan to do and what they envisions for the future, usually do better in the polls. BTW 'You' is used as in the figurative you, not you personally.

is part of the problem? I didn't think UK had Gr Ch, but I haven't taken much notice.There are breeders who think this is a great idea, others who think the dogs are not pure, and would not have one. Diversity , I guess. Breeders who are not in favour of NBT boxers have asked the CCs to notate the pedigrees with NBT so they do not accidentally introduce Corgi into their lines ... the rationale is that some generations on, they may not otherwise know whether the ancestors are NBT or not. I don't see the introduction of genes into either boxers or dalmations as a problem. If breeders want to avoid these genes, they can simply go to another line which is not problematic in their opinion. Inflammatory media reporting with Jemima Harrison jabbing the mixmaster in at full force, exacerbates the division, and indeed, makes it seem worse than it is. I wouldn't use some lines under any circumstances - because I would introduce a feature which I do not want in my dogs. I don't see any difference with Dalmations and boxers .... some will, some wont. Do those who disagree fully understand genetics? I have no idea, but it is their choice for whatever their reasons. I agree with what yo have said Jed, but as long as there is this refusal to allow the dogs to be used, then it will keep coming up and it will keep making kennedl club breeders look as if they do not care. Can you explain the breeding of Bob tail boxers to me and about the DNA testing as presented in my prior post? As I really do not understand why you need to test.

Oh yes the purity issue is totally seperate and as far as I am concerned if a health problem that cannot be solved other ways, can be solved using a single cross breeding and is done under close control and planning, then this should at least be an option for breeders. Breeders can always choose not to use the dog that are free of the disease. However as a buyer I will be shopping for the dog without the disease and this may by why both sides can not agree to disagree and let both sides do what they beleive is in the best interest of their puppies adn the breed. If that made sense. Besides it is only a matter of time that there will be enough pressure to breed health dogs wne possible and I am sure if the breeders refuse, the next thing will will find is the goverement wil make it illegal to bred a dog with the disease. It is always better to direct and lead change rather then have it thrust upon you. Back to yoru comments about Harleqines, they do not make up 50% of the population of the breed, in other words there are some Hars but they can be breed to any of the other colours?? in the breed so there is still a large selection of dogs to pick from. Hairless is another topic and another group of problems all together isn't it. Just wanted to add, that in any breeding plan be it a one time cross or DNA testing or what have you, everything will have to be considered. So it may be appropriate to do a cross bred to take out a a disease, it may not be appropriate to do a cross for some other goal.

The purity issue I think is not valid. However with bobtail gene I am a little confused. Right off I think the docking laws are not right and should be changed, there could be some laws about how and who and when tails can be docked to asure proper treatment, but it should be legal and this law will only lead to all sorts of bads things. Back to bob tail gene. I was under the impression that it is an incompete dominat gene, another words only one copy of the gene is required to have a bob tailed dog. However homozygous dogs (dogs with 2 genes for bob tail) will not survive and die prior to birth. So you should always breed a bob tail dog to a dog with a tail, andnever breed two bob tail dogs together to prevent this from happening??? This means that you can never have a total population of bob tails. So you are breeding in a trait that cannot be maintained in the whole population?? As only half of every litter would be a bob. If you could get half the population with the gene and half with out, it would mean that 50% of all dogs are not avialable to their same 50% dog of the population, this cannot be a good way to breed dogs. Maybe it is?? Further I do not understand why you need to DNA test for the gene? If the dog has the gene it would have a bob tail and if it has a tail then it does not have the gene, correct? so why test or where I am confused? Taken from http://www.animalnetwork.com.au/tests/index.php?testid=14 Severity - 1 NBT has a low degree of severity, as the trait itself poses no health concerns. However in the case of a homozygous dominant dog, the allele becomes lethal in the embryonic stage and the affected dog does not survive. Symptoms While a shortened tail has no pressing health concerns, and the gene mutation doesn’t appear to affect any other aspect of the dog’s health, breeding NBT dogs can be high risk. Natural Bob Tail is a dominant trait, that is a dog only requires a single copy of the NBT gene in order to express the trait. The problem arises when a dog is homozygous for the dominant gene, that is, they have two copies of the NBT causing gene. When a homozygous dominant occurs, the gene becomes lethal and the affected pup dies. Death of the homozygous affected dogs usually occurs in the embryonic stage, this usually accounts for small litter sizes among NBT’s being bred, as the homozygous pups do not survive. Genetic Testing Animal Network provides a DNA test that determines the genetic predisposition to NBT. As NBT is a dominant trait, a single copy is required in order for a dog to be affected. There are no carriers of a dominant trait, clear dogs possess no copies of the NBT gene, while affects have one copy. A dog with two copies of the NBT gene will not survive. Due to the autosomal dominant nature of the Natural Bob Tail (NBT) condition, it is advised that if breeding is to occur, dogs be tested in order to prevent the homozygous lethal allele occurring in pups.

This is a good link with lots of information. Like this Current Descendants of the Dalmatian Pointer Cross are at the 12th generation. In the 12th generation, the Pointer is one of 4,096 dogs, thereby contributing 0.0244% of the genetic material in that generation to the next generation - the 11th generation. From the perspective of the entire 12-generation pedigree, the Pointer is one of 8,190 dogs and contributes 0.0122% of the genetic material to the progeny. These percentages appear miniscule when framed in comparison to the sire and the dam of a litter that each contributes 50% of their genetic material to their get.

Well you can push to have this made the rule. Maybe this be good idea. By only allowing show folks to breed dogs in the kennel club this would stop all the others who do not want to show from ever breeding in the kennel club. There might be lots of pluses in doing this. It would strongly establish the kennel club as a show dog based group. Show breeders would no longer have to be associated with those who do not show. The public shopping for a pet can easily recognize the show bred pup. The show breeders can work directly with the uni and animal rights folks on the issue that are only affecting the show breeders. I sure this list could grow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...e-dog-show.html Fiona the mongrel and a spot of bother at Crufts: 'Impure' dalmatian angers traditionalists at the elite pedigree dog show By Valerie Elliott Last updated at 11:39 AM on 6th March 2011 Comments (0) Add to My Stories For 120 years Crufts has been the premier show for the world’s pedigree dogs. Now for the first time a mongrel is to compete – and not everyone is delighted at the prospect. Fiona, a three-year-old dalmatian, is in training to take the title as best in her breed this week. But there is resentment because she is a crossbreed, descended from a dalmatian and a pointer. As far as some traditionalists are concerned Fiona, who has brown spots instead of black, is ‘impure’ and should not be allowed in the show ring. Cross-breed: Fiona, pictured on the left, is descended from a dalmatian and a pointer Paul Heaton, a dalmatian breeder from Liversedge, West Yorkshire, said: ‘It is pretty unethical to allow this dog in a pedigree show. As far as I’m concerned it is an illegal entrant and makes a mockery of the dalmatian breed. ‘This is a dog that is not pure-bred. This is a mongrel. You can’t cross a dalmatian with a pointer and say it’s a dalmatian. This is unethical and I’d be disgusted if the dog won.’ Anne Harcraft, a breeder from Sheffield, agreed. 'The dog is unpure and I do not think it should be shown with pedigrees,’ she said. ‘I would be really miffed if it won.’ Unlike the other 18,600 pedigree dalmatians in Britain, Fiona carries a gene from the Pointer which protects her from a life-threatening condition. After many months of wrangling, and to the dismay of many dalmatian breeders in the country, The Kennel Club declared that Fiona could be registered as a pedigree because she can bring health benefits to future generations of dalmatians in Britain. Dotty determination: Fiona, second dog from the right, with owner Julie Evans, right, her daughter and their other dogs Dynamite, Disco and Molly Fiona, who competes under the show name Grand Champion Fiacre’s First and Foremost, has won a number of regional competitions. She has also shown such movement and agility in the preliminary heats that her owner, Julie Evans, from Barmouth, North-West Wales, believes she is in with a strong chance to win the coveted breed title at Crufts. Mrs Evans, who has bred dalmatians for 30 years, imported the dog from Nevada, in the US, last summer. She has been concerned for many years about the health problems which afflict British dalmatians as they carry a mutant gene which makes them prone to a potentially fatal chemical imbalance that affects the urinary system. By getting permission from The Kennel Club to import and breed she hopes that Fiona will be able to mother puppies with a wider gene pool that can rid the breed of this problem. Mrs Evans said: ‘My efforts have been unpopular. Breeders and clubs don’t want impure dogs and they see this genetic modification as interfering with the breed. It is interfering, but it is to introduce a healthy gene. I hope one day I can persuade them it is the right thing to do.’ The Kennel Club said it was committed ‘to consider applications to register dogs from out-crossings and inter-variety matings if it is felt that to do so may present potential health and welfare benefits’. The Club has taken tough action to promote healthy dog breeding since the furore over the 2008 BBC documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which highlighted the breeding of dogs with deformities and disease. Jemima Harrison, producer of the programme, said last night: ‘It is astonishing but true that the majority of breeders would rather have sick dogs than allow a single drop of foreign blood to taint their breeds Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz1FpksE1zY

My understanding of the term open or closed stud book is Open, the stud book is open to take in new dogs, dogs coming from outside of the kennel club. An example of an open Stud book would be if ANKC accepted WKC dogs. The dogs being brought in are the same breed, but they are dogs that are not currently registered in the kennel club. (Off topic, but I think very much to the point, One of the people who pushed so hard for change in kennel club breeding practices, started his efforts because the stud book was closed to imported Siberians from Sibera. In hind sight it might have been better to let him have his one off imported dog eh? Instead he started the KCs world wide 25 years of anti kennel club action leading up to PDE and all the UK trouble, which BTW he did not support. He also started a big trend towards forming new registries that were more flexiable in meeting the members needs. He started one for Sibs and it is a very popular world wide, meaning the kennel club has lost more members and their dogs because of their refusal to understand the desires of their breeders to use COO sibs.) Closed, a closed stud book is when no new dogs of the breed are allowed in to the stud book, only dogs from other affiliated KC stud books may be registered, it is now a isolated population with no new dogs allowed. An example of a closed stud book is ANKC refusing to accept WKC dogs. An open stud book is not the same as cross breeding to other breeds of dogs. A Cross breeding is usually done (as it was with the Dalmatian), under direct supervision and control, involving many persons, the breed club, science experts, vets and so forth. It should not go on for more then what the original plan was designed to do, in the case of the dalmation it was to bring in a normal gene to the population because there were not dogs in the stud book that were not carriers?? or maybe they were all affected with the disease. There are several cross breeding plans going on for disease in FCI in Europe right now. I do not have much information on them, but it would appear they are going to become a much more common events. As to this practice being the same as breeding mongrels, I do not see a carefully planned and controlled crossing, one time to a carefully selected breed to bring in a healthy gene to a sick population as breeding mongrels at all. But I do think that the reason for the one time cross needs to be justified, as in a seriouse health problem that cannot be corrected with out intervention (or a very small gene pool and with out crossing the breed will go extinct).

How we arrived at today. One cave man says to the other, nice bear killer wolf you have there. How many bears has he killed? Only one you say, then you are not allowed to breed him. It would be unethical to breed a wolf that has only killed one bear. You would not be a reputable wolf breeder. If you breed that wolf we will drive you away from the cave and throw stones at you. However you can bring him in the cave tonight and try him out at the fire light dog show, he looks to have very good structure for bear killer, his coat is the right colour and his ears stand up just right, I wish my bear killer had paws like your dogs. If you can get a championship from your us tonight by the fire, then we might let you breed him because he is a champion looks like a bear killer wolf. See you tonight and you keep that wolf away from that bitch wolf of yours till we give you approval and he meets our benchmarks.

That is just great that there are several of these dogs here already. When they are bred are they getting put to other imported Coo dogs or to the resident population? If there has been a male imported is there much interest in using him? I just bought a pup (not a saluki) in the UK, well almost, just finishing health testing but all looks to be good. So any new dog for me will would have to be after I recover from this. But I'm now even more excited to think there are some of these dogs over here. I really should get on a list for a pup in a year of two, I have always wanted one! Do you do any lure racing or ?? with your dogs? I would love to come and watch some time.

Can you give us the link to the web site? I am wondering if these are give away cross bred pups. That black dog looks a cross bred (does he have a bearded face?) mature pet dog looking for a new home. It may be that on the program to place the add it only allows you to slect one 'breed' on each add and all the adds say the same thing about price, which might also be the only choice. When it it totally out of context it is impossible to make a judgement about the AKC labs the US and their breed standard.

Was just reading this about the breed. ******* Most dog breeders use some form of close breeding, variously known as linebreeding or inbreeding, as this reduces the genetic variables involved in mating two individual dogs and thereby increases the COI. The aim is to produce dogs consistent in type and quality and as such it has proved very effective for many breeders. However, an inevitable, if unintended consequence of this approach is a significant reduction of individual genes within a breed as breeders select for traits that conform to breed standards. Weir and Tessier cite in support of this claim the Imperial College Study of 2008 conducted on the basis of the UK KC Stud Book which found that in the 10 breeds studied the gene loss over six generations was a minimum of 70% (in Greyhounds) and up to 90% in some other breeds. To understand the possible implications of this it is necessary to look at current understanding of the immune system. The section of the canine genome which covers the immune system is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex, or MHC. This is different from the usual model of two genes, either dominant or recessive, at each location of a chromosome in that within the MHC there are millions of partial codes which enable the immune system to manufacture specific defences against each disease. Geneticists have given the name haplotype to the sections into which the MHC is divided, and while it is still the case that in any one of these sections a dog can have only two haplotypes, it is becoming increasingly clear that if these are identical the dog's capacity to mount a vigorous immune response is reduced by half. Therefore, the fewer haplotypes a dog has the less able it is to fight disease and mutations such as cancers. The converse of this is that the more diverse its MHC, the more powerful and effective its immune response is likely to be. Studies of wild animal populations appear to support the conclusion that the more genetically diverse the wild population, the healthier it is, and geneticists studying domestic animals are beginning to find evidence of the same principle. At this point, Profesor Lohi re-enters the picture because he has developed a DNA test to estimate the diversity of an individual dog's MHC haplotypes and this test is now commercially available.While the currently available test doesn't identify disease genes per se it will enable breeders to choose breeding pairs which will only produce heterozygous puppies and research indicates that this may reduce the possibility of eventual AI diseases of various kinds in resulting litters. In order to have options of different MHC haplotypes it is in a breed's interest to preserve the largest variety of haplotypes possible as the more identical the genes are the more likely the immune system will be to attack healthy cells of a specific type resulting in a whole range of auto-immune disorders and cancers. It is of interest to note that Prpfessor Lohi and his team have found that the Saluki has 24 individual haplotypes, which is the same number as that found in wild canines, as opposed to the Standard Poodles sampled from the UK and Scandinavia which so far have been found to have only 6 different haplotypes. Brought these questions to mind? So how do saluki compare to Greys of other sight hounds for Haplotypes? Are the current desert strains of Saluki healthier than the KC strains? I just read this about the KC type over recent years the incidence of previously unknown or uncommon auto-immune disorders and cancers in Salukis has increased ******** It is so hard to pick through all this stuff the way it is presented. However I would still love to have a desert Saluki, I should know better than to look at anything that had to do with Saluki...LOL I am only going to get into trouble. Oh and can I add a desert afghan with the shorted coat too, just because you might as well be killed for a sheep as a lamb, eh? I better also learn how to spell bedouin LOL.

Yes 3 generations. I think you are right, almost sure in fact. Also for ABCA or CBCA dogs coming from the AKC inot ANKC KC or FCI clubs. However I do not think FCI has anything to do with it. AKC and ANKC not the KC are not FCI members. I can not think they would ask FCI for approval of their decision to register or not. Would be more likely that FCI would automatically approve of anything that AKC ANKC and KC did, just as they all honor each others decisons and pedigree. Now how this works with controlled crossing to different breeds I am not sure. There are several Controlled cross breeding programs going in some of the Eurpopean kennel clubs right now which would be FCI, but I know little about how they earn full registration or transfer to other registries.

I found this bred club today for Salukis when reading up on promoting and maintaining a large amount of genetic diversity in a breed, even if the breed does not have huge numbers. http://www.desertbred.org/index.htm I have to admit I have a real soft spot for sight hounds and this breed really does do things to me. I was not surprised to find this registry outside of the Kennel Club breeding desert salukis, but what did surprise me was that these dogs with 3 generations in this registry can then be registered into the AKC (Kennel Club). More and more kennel clubs seem to be opening up to ways to address the concerns of breeders wanting more flexibility found in controlled opening of the stud books. Opportunities like these, to bring the true original dog into the closed gene pools in the kennel clubs are just fantastic. These programs could make a whole new start for some breeds, save others breeds from extinction and can only help to address so many concerns in all breeds. On Monday I want to find if these KC registered dogs can then be imported and registered in ANKC. Anyone know? I am goign to guess that they can not be but I hope I am wrong. I don't suppose it is legal to hunt (like the rabbits that we kill all the time) with sight hounds in Australia?

Agree, and that is exactly what I do and educate my buyers about. Have been doing this for about 12 years now. All the reserch is pointing to really good results in reducing severity and even possibly controlling HD with a slow growth diet, lower protein and lower calcium.

Hi, Border collies come in a large number of colours. In the world gene pool of border collies, without breeding for colours or breeding to eliminate colours, approximately 50% of border collies carry the tri coloured gene. The tan points can also be found on all of the base colours such as chocolate, merle, blue and do so, also at about 50% of those dogs in the normal world population. The depth of colour of tan points is also variable and control by a different gene, the markings can range from a very pale creamy tan all the way to the darkest of orange russet colour. Sable is also very common in the breed, they often look like tri colours and many dogs labeled as Tri colours are actually sables. Lifting the top coat of the base colour may reveal a cream undercoat or banded hairs on sables, along with the tan markings. Finding a tri colour in the ANKC registry population in Australian can be difficult. Colours other than black and white have been unpopular in the breed ring. With most breeders selecting for black and white, the other colours have become in effect 'rare' in the kennel club population. This has recently lead to what is called 'colour breeding' as some breeders try to breed and sell dogs based on their 'rare' coat colour. The working bred border collies in Australia, registered in the sheep dog registers or the Au working border collie register, for the most part have not been breed to have or not have certain colours. Therefore tri coloured and sables dogs are found in their normal frequency of about 50% of the population carrying the gene. Tris are found in most bloodlines and at most kennels/studs and are very common. Hope this helps and you find just he right dog for your family.

Perhaps the trials are not testing for real work.

I think that is the biggest puzzle for those that believe you can only have breed if you have a physical description that you fashion the dog after. Yet we have the breed, in it's original form, in it's original registry, still desiring the original goal, which is the the worlds premier sheepdog. How do they look? Head down, tail low tense, ready, eye, brave, the foot of a chameleon ever so slowly forward to meet the ground, a bolt of light, hockey pucks, and the quiver of a motor that is ready. You can't miss it once you seen it. BTW I read today that Old Hemp quivered with excitement when waiting at the post to be sent, yes the quiver that is what they look like.

I was under the impression that the standard were drawn up to describe a dog which could fulfill his duties in the best manner. I don't think the standards were drawn up just for the show ring. And working dog and show dog standards should be the same. The better breeders do produce dogs which can win in the ring - and work....whatever that work happens to be. People who seek dogs which will work stock rarely seek it in show circles, so "show line" dogs rarely get an opportunity to work. However some acquit them selves well at trials - and the very few who are actually working, seem to do so in a competent manner. Hi Jed. For the border collie, the registry for the breed started in the Uk 1906, ISDS.. there was no physical standard then and it still functions today as the premier registry for border collies and still no standard. The dogs were also registered down here in the state sheepdog registers, no standards. All over the world there were working registries for border collies and no standards. Then the first show standard (I think was written in NZ but the Ozzies say the did, so they can fight it out), it was the the the 1950's late I think, and it was to bring the breed into the kennel club/show ring for the first time. The working people did not move into the ANKC then and to this day they stay in the working registries. The working registries are far outstripping in numbers of dogs and members the show registries. In fact here is OZ and NZ you have the highest number of show bred dogs anywhere. I had never seen a show bred border collie till I moved here, that is how rare they were in the US and Canada and the UK till very recent history. There are still no standards today in the working registires and this is were the bulk of the dogs are registered around the world. For border collies, standards are totally a kennel club show concept and have nothing to do with the development or the breeding of the working border collie. The popularity of working border collies contiunes to grow and there is no disire at all to adopt a standard into the working registires. This is just the way it is. I do not think anyone needs to take offence if they are on the standard side of the border collie fence. Having two types does not discredit either side. The show folks and their dogs also serve a vital and worthy function. The dog world has to come to grips with these ideas. We do not have to all be the same, we do not have to all breed the same types of dogs, nor do we have to all have the same goals. We can be different and not be bad breeders. In fact it is good, good for the dogs and good for us dog lovers. I also love history, but when it comes to saving our breeds and saving purebreds, we had better be able to justify the state of our dogs in today's world. Standards or no standards, this is already the declared bottom line and we better hear it and be ready to respond.