Stafford Breeders

[Sandra777]

No, that's not what I'm saying. A blue dog has a particular flaw that is not accepted in the standard, ie a nose that does not correspond with what the standard calls for. NOSE BLACK. That isn't just a cosmetic flaw, it is a genetic flaw.

As I said, IF the standard were changed to allow a slate nose, then that would make things different. But until that happens a blue isn't acceptable in my eyes no matter how it is painted.

And a dog with a top line which isn't level doesn't correspond to the standard which calls for a level topline and a dog with straight stifles doesn't correspond with the standard which calls for well bent stifles. These are genetic flaws too - and are structural/functional faults which cause the dog to be unable to perform the task for which it was bred. Pricked ears, light toenails, light eyes, grey or brown nose are all cosmetic even though they too are genetic, they don't prevent the dog being healthy and live a full and active life.

There is no dog which doesn't fail to correspond to the breed standard in some way - so they are ALL unacceptable? Which parts of the breed standard are more important than others - the bits that affect health or the bits which are purely cosmetic?

[westozmike]

Thanks for the feedback.

Sandra777 - I like the "cut of your jib" ...

You summed up nicely regarding other potential flaws which are likely to be present in any given SBT - so why simply focus only on the nose colour...could common sense I would have thought.

So - am I correct in saying that other than the dilute alopecia issue, there are no other health issues directly related to a blue SBT.

If this is correct and if I can be assured (by written and observable evidence) that the blue is of good healthy stock, has no other heriditry/genetic issues, is from a breeder who's is focused on health as much (if not more than colour) - then i should be OK with my blue selection from a blue litter. Or is it possible that the dilute alopecia could develop in a dog even if it comes from stock that haven't had it??

[Miss B]

And I still maintain that until it conforms to the standard, it is still nothing more than a dog that has blue hair.

Bizarre.

[Sandra777]

If this is correct and if I can be assured (by written and observable evidence) that the blue is of good healthy stock, has no other heriditry/genetic issues, is from a breeder who's is focused on health as much (if not more than colour) - then i should be OK with my blue selection from a blue litter.

Good luck finding that blue breeder.

There is NO way any ethical breeder can guarantee their pups will be free of all genetic faults as we only have DNA tests for two of them. A dodgy backend is as much a genetic fault as L2-HGA

Or is it possible that the dilute alopecia could develop in a dog even if it comes from stock that haven't had it??

Yes of course it's possible, the condition affects dilute colours so of course it's possible

Edited January 12, 2010 by Sandra777

[Eileen]

If this is correct and if I can be assured (by written and observable evidence) that the blue is of good healthy stock, has no other heriditry/genetic issues, is from a breeder who's is focused on health as much (if not more than colour) - then i should be OK with my blue selection from a blue litter. Or is it possible that the dilute alopecia could develop in a dog even if it comes from stock that haven't had it??

From what I understand, if you are buying a blue pup, avoid buying one from a purely blue litter, making sure the parents aren't both blue.

And Sandra, you are a very intelligent, reasoned woman. I love reading your posts.