fixer

LACK of colour (pigment). Caused by the white spotting gene. This is basic colour genetics. (I suggest this website.. http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/ ) What colour is your dog? What is the colour listed in its standard. If your dog was lost, what colour would you use to describe it?

Agree. The only people I know or am aware of who enter neuters are exhibitors who take the opportunity to give their old neutered conformation champions a run. Dogs that have paid their dues in the real world of dog showing. Still, showies are much more interested in the veterans s.s than they are the neuter scene. The veterans actually draw the crowd & the applause & the admiration.

SBT's and he's full of sour grapes... I'm guessing my dog is one that he's taking a shot at :laugh: Does your dog have yellow eyes? This may it it folks.

A question to all the owners of dogs with non human, tongue twister names. What do you actually call your dogs day in day out? Just an example because it is the post preceding . Do you call Suleiman Suleiman all the time, some of the time, hardly ever. My pick is door three.

But if neuter was only for already titled dogs, I and my dog would not be able to participate at all in shows (my meager entry fee is still money that clubs use, clubs gain more by having us there! and we have fun). There is no reason why my dog should not be shown, other than the fact that she is missing a uterus. The reason for this is nothing to do with her, it was MY circumstances that dictated her being desexed. As has been highlighted in my previous posts, I think it's important to see not just a dog or bitch in the showring, but siblings and other relatives as well! You think you should be able to exhibit neutered dogs at sanctioned dog shows? O.k, that's your perogative. That's your world. I'm not part of it. I don't agree with the idea. That's my perogative. Maybe i'm just a relic of days gone by. But the basic theory behind pure breed dog shows is the exhibition of prime breeding stock. That's my world. You're not part of it. & never the twain shall meet. Neuter champions? How about before neuter championship points are allocated a percentage of the total group entry has to be attained. Say 10% for e.g. 200 group entry = 10 neuters min competing for 6 points for the group & the right to compete for best neuter in show One point per dog in the B.N.I.S line up. No challenge points to be issued. Before you ask the question. Yes. I do believe points should be earned & not gifted. Has any one ever seen a neuter non awarded? I haven't. But then I'm not interested enough to really take any notice.

Very poor construction? As in VERY POOR construction? No No I haven't. Obviously we are in different rings.

What you have at 6 weeks is close to what you will have at 18 months. Sex will narrow it down of course, & colour will come into it, but is a trap & should be down the list. However, there is many a slip between the cup & the lip.

What reasons? Any reason. Age. Illness. Because the owner wants. There is talk they should be eligible for the BoB lineup Good grief. Actually I'd rather see more veterans than neutered. That doesn't really make sense for a conformation show. It doesn't matter why a neutered dog has been neutered they should be eligible to compete for the neutered class because that's the pre-requisite - the fact that it hasn't got a confirmation title to it's name has no bearing on the judges ability to assess it against the standard, why not let them do it then. If it's a poor exhibit of the breed they can non-award, if it's good enough it will get a neuter challenge and some points. I would agree with you that they really shouldn't be lining up against the entire exhibits for BOB though at this point in time although if the concept of neuter really took off, they could certainly look at Best Entire, Best Neuter and then run off for BOB - I just don't think we've reached that point yet. The thread asked the question "what do you think of it" I said what I think. If by some strange transaction neuters were to become eligble compete for B.O.B they would also have to compete against the entires in the class runoffs.

I certainly miss the coast on days like today.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying. I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog. Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this. B&T is in SBT's Is "highly Undesirable. If the judge actually know the standard & did think this dog was the pick she should have non awarded the whole lot. A much better result for the breed. Just turning up shouldn't guarantee a result. That actually may be the case, but perhaps the judge considered the exhibit worthy of the award on the basis that said highly undersirable fault was not detrimental to the health of the animal as the standard says when considering the degree of seriousness, and as the fault was highly undesirable rather than disqualifying, they were ok with awarding a challenge. It's purely speculation as to why a judge will and will not award and we are not always privy to their interpretation of the standard to know if they do or do not know it. I assume that if you were presented an exhibit with this colouring that you'd place it well below others of the breed - what faults would you consider more acceptable in others though - no pump action tail, inclined canines, poor topline? I'm not a judge but I'd always consider a dog with a coat colour fault more desireable than a dog with very poor construction. Repeat. A c.c does not have to be awarded. Whole breeds have been non awarded for less serious faults than "highly undesirable" Besides My comment was about the judge not knowing that fault was highly undesirable. Ignorance of the standard was the issue. I doubt any judge would knowingly award a dog with a highly undesirable fault. It's a biggy. To big to be an Australian Champion. Showies don't exhibit dogs with very poor construction.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Black and tan has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in the UK so it has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in Australia. The original breed standard (1935) had B&T & Liver Coloured as "not to be encouraged". The 1949 revision kept this wording. The 1980's revision changed it to undesirable. Black and tan has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in the UK so it has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in Australia. Ignoring the fact that white isn't a colour - eye colour is cosmetic. If you were a judge (god forbid!) and were presented with your perfect interpretation of the breed standard but it was a black brindle with yellow eyes would you: Non-award the dog? Award it Best of Sex but withhold the CC? Put it last in it's class to a bunch of inferior quality dogs with dark eyes? What part of COSMETIC fault do you have a problem with? Thanks for the compliment - don't think I'm capable of getting breeds out of whack all by myself, pretty sure I don't have that much influence, but thanks anyway You call that thinking? OK Since you lack to intestinal fortitude to name names or places how will we ever know. Yep, we'll certainly try to, despite your best efforts. Concede. Not to be encouraged changed to Highly undesirable. It is still P.c for not to be considered which ever way you look at it. One correction, just to save a little face... 1948. To answer your questions. I would most likely award first in class & would not consider it for a c.c. If there wasn't another entry that I.M.O was of such merit as to be an Aust Ch I would not issue a c.c. Intestinal fortitude? If the dog had have been named I could ask. So, do you have a black brindle with yellow eyes? If white is not a colour what is it? White is listed as a colour in the standard. Also "Any of the above with....what? no colour? Just a big patch of nothing. Come on. Why are dogs now registered as white with red/black/brindle markings instead of more easily recognised & still in popular use "Red/Black Pied" if white isn't a recognised colour. What is Pied?. Predominately white with another colour is what. Define your meaning of "Cosmetic" ....improving the appearance is mine? Which, in most instances, is only temporary. Every fault I mentioned are not "cosmetic"..they are ''genetic" They will be passed on. The individual influence of one dog is not effectively diminish before 3 or 4 generations have passed. Plenty of puppies could be whelped in the mean time. I would love to see your reaction if your breeding bitch threw a litter of B&Ts with yellow eyes. You would have no idea no idea where it came from. Not that it matters, because it doesn't really exist? right? oh so wrong. You wont get the breed out of whack alone...it will take a couple of generations with your close enough is good enough rational. You can't just pick the bits & pieces that suit your style. You can't run with the fox & hunt with the hounds. You did land a blow but you're still in that naughty corner, keep swinging. You might get lucky again. I'm criticising your written thoughts, not your results. Simply because I don't know you or your results. Afford me the same courtesy.

Not an option in Queensland. Aren't Qld dogs registered with the ANKC? It's ANKC option.

What reasons? Any reason. Age. Illness. Because the owner wants. There is talk they should be eligible for the BoB lineup Good grief. Actually I'd rather see more veterans than neutered.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying. I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog. Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this. B&T is in SBT's Is "highly Undesirable. If the judge actually know the standard & did think this dog was the pick she should have non awarded the whole lot. A much better result for the breed. Just turning up shouldn't guarantee a result.

If the eyes MAY bear some relation to coat colour then very light yellow tinged eyes are perfectly acceptable on fawn dogs - so never say never. My point which you seem to have missed in your anger is that the colour of a dog's eyes is cosmetic and the standard only says that dark eyes are preferred - not that light/yellow/green/blue/purple or orange eyes are to be disqualified. Black and tan has never been a disqualification in Australia - the Stafford standard in Australia has never included disqualifications. You seem to believe dogs are judged on their faults - good judges judge on virtues. Edited to fix the quote Standards state departure from the above are to be considered faults etc,etc, etc....... At first appraisal dogs are judged on their virtues, but with exceptionly strongly represented breeds one ends up working backwards & it is the faults that end up playing the leading role. Australia honours country of origin standards. Unfortunatley. For as long as B&T was a disqualification in G.B. it was a disqualification in Australia. I don't know when the change was made, but I have an idea it was in 1987,(not really sure though) & I don't know when the first SBT hit these shores. Late 40's early 50's i'm thinking. Taking WW11 into consideration. However, Highly Undesirable is less than a half a heart beat from disqualification. It's the p.c. way of saying Not to be Considered. Back to the subject of my non anger....frustration? A little. Accepting that dark eyes are preferred. (At least we both agree on something) And conceding the breed coat colours range from black, through brindle to red fawn blue white, which end of the colour range would you say the darkest eyes would most relate to, & from there the allowances would be made for lighter coloured coats with lighter colour eyes? Yes? No? Just beacause a dog has a lighter coat doesn't necessarily mean it automatically has lighter coloured eyes either. Most still have reasonably dark eyes, damn near black in the majority of cases....as per the standard. Your wobbly interpretation of the eye colour is the reason breeds get out of whack. I'm thinking you have just backed yourself into a corner & have decided to just keep swinging regardless. Whoops Just had another thought. It wasn't your dog they were speaking about was it? Anyhow. In the end the honest & the ethical will keep the breeds pointed in the right direction.

WRONG!!! Black and tan is not a colour it is a pattern. It is whatever base colour plus the tan points gene. There are many other colours, including reds that show the tan patterning. Smut dogs carry the tan point gene. Sable/smut doesn't exist without it. Many dogs are awarded by knowledgeable judges which exhibit this pattern, there are many brindle dogs out there which have brindling/pencilling in the tan point areas. Most breed standards which include the tan points gene specifically mention tan that is from the palest cream to the darkest red and many specifically mention that pencilling is not desirable. The original Stafford standard was written before the genetics of colour inheritance were understood. I didn't say it was a colour. Brindle is a colour, but it is not considered to be B&T. B&T is more a description than a pattern if get down to the nitty gritty. If I say "brindle" you know exactly what I am speaking of. Ditto "B&T". Never the twain shall meet For those wondering, think Rottweiler, Dobermann & any of the four eyed dogs. Eyebrows, cheeks, muzzle, chest, feet/legs, under the tail. Tan points indicate B&T, it doesn't matter how faint they are, it's were they are that is the indicator. The standard says it is ''highly undesirable" Therefore it should not be awarded. The reason it is "highly undesirable: is because it is feared once it took hold it could take over. Those who don't care to honour their breed standards should find something else to bugger up. btw. The original standard disqualified what was referred to as "liver", which it said by many knowledgable long time breeders to be todays "blue".

"So you are saying the exhibitor had cosmetically altered the dog?" You couldn't be as naive as you sound? Surely? Ever heard of mascara? Marking pens ? Chalk? Powder? How about hairspray & blowdriers? curling wands? scissors? Plush puppy? vaseline? Boot polish even? It would be harder to find a dog that wasn't "cosmetically altered"

Cosmetic fault - bears no relation to the quality of the dog. Even the standard doesn't actually say it's an issue "Dark preferred" dark PREFERRED "Black and tan or liver colour highly undesirable" highly undesirable isn't a disqualification So you are saying the exhibitor had cosmetically altered the dog? - put your complaint together and prove it to the Canine Control. That said, again the standard only says highly undesirable - it's not a disqualification here as it is in the USA. And does the dog have brindle points or is it a true black and tan because as pedantic as it may seem the Stafford standard finds black and tan highly undesirable, not tan points. There's a lot of tan point Staffords out there fixer and I for one would love to see the DNA colour results for many of our more well known dogs world wide. Dark preferred but may bear some relation to coat colour. Round, of medium size, and set to look straight ahead. Eye rims dark. If you wish to state the standard please do so in context. Dark preferred..... BUT MAY BEAR SOME RELATION TO THE COLOUR OF THE COAT......which means the lighter the coat the lighter the acceptability of the eye colour is. conversely, the darker the dog, the darker the eye should be. But yellow?...never. "There is lot of tan pointed SBT's out there"....utter rubbish. Tan points indicate Black & Tan , previously a disqualification now merely Highly Undesirable. No ethical responsible breeder would counternance using a Black & Tan in their breeding, nor would any ethical responsible KNOWLEDGABLE judge ever award one. It's not as though The SBT is a rare breed with a small gene pool that allowances should be made. The breed is very strong here & dogs with tan points & yellow eyes should be weeded out, not encouraged.

It wasn't a comment it was a question as it has been shown time and time again that these types of threads are usually started by someone who has been beaten by, in their eyes, a vastly inferior dog. One could probably say those with one dog entry breeds don't really have the experience to comment on the subject.

If the provision was mandated it wouldn't be compulsory to "challenge'' even if you did know the standard had been prostituted. I am only speaking of obvious to the eye of those who know.....& care. Judges have the option to non award. The integrity of the breeds should come first & foremost in their "opinion" Examples stated on a different website & from different states included obviously over height Bull Terrier ( miniatures) Ditto lakeland Terriers A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes. I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points. It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....her reply though had people scratching their heads. "I don't judge colour, I judge type" A judge who obviously didn't know the standard of the breed she was judging. Other breeds I can remember off hand were Bostons with teeth visible when the mouth was closed. Rotties which are timid & others with a clearly visible white markings. There were others, but I can't recall them, nor do really want to waffle on. Except for the conversation the rest is all third hand. But it indicates that if given the chance breeders with the courage might just step forward & be counted. If came to pass, it would snap the judging community into line, & that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I am not speaking of exhibits "YOU" think didn't deserve to be awarded. Every second exhibitor would be questioning the decisions. If the exhibit appears to fit its standard whether it deserves to be awarded or not is opinion & the judges opinion is all that counts on the score sheet. Even if its "appears" to be face judging there is no still possibility of redress. "I.M.O" will win everytime. What i'm speaking of are obvious standard contradicting "faults" Such as mismarkings, lack of pigmentation, incorrect earset/placement, oversized, light eyes, disqualifying or "highly undesirable" colouring,too coarse,too fine, lame dogs.....etc, etc....."undersirables" that are written into the various standards. Written down things you can point at. Not opinion, fact. If there was a procedure in place whereby the judge could be held accountable & could be called upon to explain his /her decision to breed experts a lot of controversy would be eliminated......I.M.O. Every experienced exhibitor/breeder is, for all intents & purposes a breed expert, & there is more angst generated amongst the knowledgable when non standard exhibits are awarded than there is over face judging.

As exhibitors are frequently advised by judges "you are paying for my opinion" why then are exhibtors prevented from questioning an opinion they have paid for at the time the opinion is given? If a c.c is awarded to an exhibit that is obviously not to standard for e.g., why can not exhibitors "challenge'' the awarding? Surely "In my opinion" doesn't cut the mustard when that opinion is obviously "suspect".

I.M.O. neuter classes should only be for already titled dogs that have been neutered, for any of a variety of reasons. To suggest the L.R. is only for non show quality dogs is not only naive, it's ridiculous. The limit register was raised so as all surviving whelps could added to breed statistics. It only replaces the ''no papers'' variety from the old "with papers" "without papers" era. It also gives "pet" buyers a pedigree & the option to upgrade to the main if the showing bug bites. The L.R. is terrific innovation...I.M.O. B.T.W. Main register papers can be marked not for breeding, which only means puppies wont be registered of course, so the L.R. isn't the only option open for breeders to "protect their lines"

My Ex partner who owned Kenny's mum Sandy, the same as my name. The number of times people asked his dogs name & he replied Sandy, he used to get a mouthful, because people thought he was talking about me. I heard a story of a man who registered his m.i.l with the council as a mongrel bitch & gave her the registration disk as a xmas present.

This a great capture. I'd title this "Attitude" just b.t.w it's looks to be undershot, which most bracky breeds are