ellz

Go with your head. I've gone with my heart in the past and have either been let down or steamrolled by regrets.

I've only ever had a couple of "heart dogs" that were female. The boys seem to endear themselves to me as a rule. My current boy chose me when he was first able to get himself up on Teletubbie legs and waddle over to me...he chose his name at the same time. I'm thankful he has turned out the quality that he has as a show dog because no matter what, he was staying!

My "local" show! ;) Amazing place to live and even better when you can combine your usual grocery shopping and errands with a show!

Can I just interject here and reiterate that I don't do it YET, but that I am seriously considering doing so. Therefore, I really want to separate what you have quoted from my post from what you yourself have said because I really do NOT agree with much of what you have written from the third sentence on. The second sentence, I can accept because that is a real concern but after that, your post really degenerates into little more than an emotive attack on the breeders who have done their own research and are happy with their choice.

Awww.... you much t-time!

I think it really does depend upon breed and colour. The puppy might well be healthy in the nest but that doesn't mean to say it will stay that way. And I'd rather take a gamble and cull a puppy than end up with the next Greyshaft on my doorstep. That would really just be my luck! ellz I was thinking more of my breed cavs. A common problem is clown face in a blenheim, that is no red around the eyes, or no blaze in a tri colour or too much white on a black and tan or ruby. I wouldn't worry too much about the tri or the black and tan or ruby, but not having pigmentation around the eyes could increase the risk of sunburn. That would worry me. I've had such concerns in the past with parti Americans.

Nothing scientific to offer but my litter of American Cocker puppies had 3 Black/Tan puppies and 2 Black puppies (out of a black bitch with black/tan parents and a black/white dog with one tricoloured parent). The 3 B/T puppies got parvo, the blacks got seedy but not actually sick. The blacks were titre tested a few years later and showed good immunity to parvo, 2 of the B/Ts never showed any form of immunity. Only anecdotal but interesting nonetheless. Never had any experience with Staffords getting parvo but did have a Rottweiler with parvo many years ago. My first experience at dog ownership as an adult on my own and what an experience that one turned out to be.

I love PBGVs. I fell for them when I was working in the States. I first saw them at a dog show in California. And just as I was leaving, one came into the kennels so I missed out on handling it.

Staffords are (according to vets anyway, I've not seen it personally) apparently more prone to parvo as well. I wonder if that is because they carry the tan point gene? I also had a litter of American Cocker puppies (black and tan) that got parvo as babies (despite vaccination) and when older, not ONE Of them retained any form of immunity.

You will find that a lot of the problem with certain breeds and their non-acceptance of colour is that in some cases, they cannot actually pinpoint the origin of the colour in history. Some breeds have therefore questioned the validity of pedigrees and claimed that the "odd" colours (which may still be perfectly beautiful) have come in via infusions of genetics from other breeds carrying the colours. This is one of the leading arguments behind the non-acceptance of the sable colour in American Cockers today. It was hinted at some time ago that another breed was introduced, either accidentally or deliberately into certain pedigrees and this is where the sable (and possibly the merle) genes started to happen. Despite the fact that there were for a few years some simply stunning examples of Sable and Sable parti American Cockers shown, and titled, it is now possible to register them but they are DQ'd from the ring in the USA, Australia and some other countries. But permissible in Canada and the UK. Very confusing. One of my old American imports is the grandfather of some simply breathtaking sable/parti dogs (one is an All Breeds BIS winner in the USA) but he never sired a sable to my knowledge during his stud career in Australia.

Believe me Pippa, there are other threads that have not been railroaded with references to Nazism that discuss these things. If you use the search function it wouldn't be hard to find them.

I find the Bracco interesting (and appealing). At first glance, he looks like he belongs in the hound group, not the gundog group.

I tried that on Ali before I placed her....didn't work on her unfortunately. And hasn't worked on Vanni either. So no more American Cockers for Ellz.

No. Some colours are not acceptable for other reasons, such as because they make a dog more prone to being mistaken for what it is hunting. Or make it blend in too much with the background and make it impossible to find. Or simply because they are recognised as being THAT breed because of a unique colouring or an unmistakeable marking. For example, a Beagle no matter what the main colour is, MUST have a white tip on his tail so that the hunters can see him above the undergrowth. And I believe one of the reasons that white is frowned upon on the throat and chest of Rottweilers is because the white becomes more visible in the dark, thereby making the dog a target for attackers. Don't quote me on that one, the source is possibly not all that reliable. But it does make sense to me.

The joys of colour genetics are that a) what is acceptable in some breeds isn't in others and b) they tend to join up with other recessives which is what causes the health issues in certain breeds. Producing ANY colour isn't an easy matter, considering the fact that colour genetics is so complicated. It can be difficult enough to produce DESIRED colours, let alone NOT produce problematic colours. It is all a matter of the way the dice is shaken and the matching genes are pulled out of the cup. Considering some breeds and varieties have literally THOUSANDS of colour genetic combinations, I actually find your comment a little unfair. Look at breeds which only have a handful of accepted colours, are not from a huge gene pool and yet STILL mismarks and oddities appear. That's how Mother Nature works. Oh and most of my friends with cremellos and perlinos may not have horses with skin issues, but they DO get badly sunburned on the unpigmented skin and that's not something for the average horse owner to necessarily want to, or have the knowledge to cope with either. Even highly marked "solid" colours have those issues, as well as increased risk of mud fever with white marked legs.

I think it really does depend upon breed and colour. The puppy might well be healthy in the nest but that doesn't mean to say it will stay that way. And I'd rather take a gamble and cull a puppy than end up with the next Greyshaft on my doorstep. That would really just be my luck!

Exactly and I wonder how many of the people who are breeding with known issues are truly aware of this? I had an interesting chat with somebody the other day who wanted to use my dog at stud. He had no real reason for wanting a litter, other than that the puppies were cute and he could sell them. Once I explained to him that if he were to breed puppies that had issues that were hereditary and could/SHOULD have been tested for prior to birth, he seemed to change his mind. That and the fact that I wasn't interested in one of the puppies and my dogs' stud fee is not cheap (to him and others like him anyway - the almight dollar can be a drawcard but it is a mighty handy deterrent too!).

Not really applicable to the Stafford standard which is really very old and prior the days of knowledge of skin and health issues. Also, remember that the Stafford was very much a "working class man's dog". They were expected to be tough, live tough and not get mollycoddled. If they weren't robust, they were culled. If they couldn't do their job, they were replaced.

Stunning!! does remind me of a thick set kelpie though. Doesn't look anything at all like my Kelpie! But mind you, doesn't look a lot like my Staffords either! Can't find the photo I'm looking for at the moment, but I'm sure I have it here somewhere so I'll keep looking.

This is only a puppy of course, I'm trying to find a photo I had of a cracking black/tan dog.

Thanks for that huga, I'll do that. I've seen a couple of entry-level Nikon DSLRs that look quite promising. One of the camera shops in Hobart usually has a couple on display so next time I'm in town I'll toddle in and do some camera-groping there! I should mention that I have difficulties holding onto some things and using buttons and dials because of arthritis in my thumbs and wrists so ergonomic type stuff that wouldn't bother a lot of people can wreak havoc with me.

Don't bet on it....at 3 months it is quite possible that the stress and flight COMPLETELY turned her hormones OFF!! Good luck, I hope she starts cycling for you but if you haven't seen a season at 20 months and she has been here since 3 months, I'd be thinking a visit to a repro specialist may be in order before it is too late altogether.

Liver and blue wouldn't see the light of day here. From what I've seen of those colours, aside from the risks of health problems which are increased because of dilute gene alopecia, no matter what lines they are from, they generally are not of decent quality and I personally wouldn't want my prefix associated with them. Fawn and black/tan....well......a lot would depend upon quality. Fawn I'm less keen on, so would probably be desexed and placed. Black/tan....as long as you know where it is coming from in the pedigree, really there isn't a lot to fear. To be honest, I think black/tan appears more often than many breeders let on.

Well....black/tan is not terribly difficult a lot of the time....watch out for smuts or black/brindles with "pencilling" in the areas where tan occurs. The pencilling is sometimes referred to as sable in some breeds. Smut patterning is "reverse" tan points and requires the tan point gene as the "on/off" switch. Breed two smuts together or black/brindle offspring of two smuts together and start praying when those puppies arrive!!!

Thank you all for your input. I've had another play with BOTH cameras...and I have to say that I'm still leaning towards Pentax. There are just certain things about it, the way it feels in my hands and that kind of stuff that is influencing me. I also visited the forums that Rappie mentioned and did a lot of reading and have done a heap of comparisons online at quite a few different sites. All of my questions and concerns have been answered, or at the least met and thus far for what I'm wanting, the Pentax does come out slightly in front. That said....I've also been pointed towards a different version of the Pentax which may be more suitable. One of the major differences seems to be taking video and that doesn't bother me because I don't want to take video. I've been put onto a very very good, reliable and CHEAP source for lenses as well and have also been pointed towards a supplier for the camera itself who is buying in bulk and the cost of the new camera (with 2 lenses) isn't that much more than the all-up cost for the used Canon and then saving to buy a new lens. And as has been pointed out....if I don't like the Pentax or I find it isn't suitable, then I can always sell it and the place I would probably purchase from, will allow trade-ins and upgrades at competitive prices on other models and brands. So...for now, that's where I'm at. I really did like the feel of the Pentax and I'm still liking the photos that I take with it. But of course, all is a moot point because I'm still saving. Something else may come along during the timeframe that I'm working towards. So I've kind of decided, but am flexible (and still learning and researching) for now.