Rare Or Disqualifed Colours In Breeds.

[Sheridan]

This looks (to me) like a wheaten kerry blue terrier.

What do you think?

It's a "kerry blonde" That is mismarked kerry not a wheaten. In fact, if you look at the wheaten head it's more irish terrier than kerry. I've posted that before along with pictures of black and tan kerries, tri-colour kerries. The irish, wheaten and kerry are closely related, of course.

There are a number of mismarked kerries and there's a very good article from Dr Neil O'Sullivan (a geneticist and himself a wheaten breeder) about the genetics of kerries and wheatens (can't find the link). Wheatens are actually genetically sable (hence the brown and black colour they're born with) and only one gene turns them wheaten. It's like having a different dog each month until they're around 18 months to two years.

This is an (in)famous photo of incorrectly coloured Kerry Blue Terriers.

They're soooo pretty ...

As Sheridan said, Kerries, SCWTs and Irish are quite closely related but are also distinclty different in coat type, texture, colour, head and body shape and temperament.

One of the most amusing questions I've ever been asked about my Kerry Blues is "do they come in any other colours?" Duh, NO.

The soft, wavy slatey blue-grey coat is a hallmark of the breed, a distinctive feature which cannot be compromised. Oh and BTW the Kerry standard states that the nose and nails must be black and that the gums and roof of mouth must be darkly pigmented. Every Kerry Blue Terrier has a Black nose.

Merijigs, I am all astonishment. The correct term is 'big black nose'! :D

[poodlefan]

I doubt it. I agree with Janba, it is fashion & nothing else. The aust standard does not even make genetic sense!

If visibility were a serious & valid factor:

cream kelpies would be allowed, since they are the same colour as re red BC's (allowable)

other countries would have the same limitations of colour

there would not be so many outstanding mostly white dogs both here & overseas

I'd have thought white would be a good thing to have on a dog in the more challenging UK weather.

[wuffles]

Do BCs have the issues as Aussies with excess white? That is, lack of pigment causing hearing or vision problems? (Edit: And also exposure to the sun)

Edited November 10, 2010 by wuffles

[Janba]

Did you never consider that GRs and Border Collies are the colours they are for a reason?

Australia is the only country that restricts border collie colours and the markings you see in the show ring are purely fashion. BCs have to have some white on them but the patern is not important. Everywhere else in the world they can be any colour and most other countries also accept short coats.

That fact that the standard doesn't say "any colour or colours acceptable" suggests that colour has some role to play. I'm guessing visibility while working is part of that equation?

From the Kennel Club standard (the country of origin) and this is basically the same wording in all other standards worldwide.

Colour

Variety of colours permissible. White should never predominate.

Colour is a contentious issue with BCs in this country and colours have been added since the first standard was written here - blue merle being one example.

Genetically the colour restrictions make no sense and there are no health problems associated with the colours except merle to merle matings. There are also no disqualifying colours in our standard.

Visibility is not really a reason for the limited colours either. Why is a chocolate dog more visible than a chocolate dog with tan points or even a chocolate merle? White on the end of the tail isn't a factor either as a BC who is working will carry his tail low.

ETA I don't believe in breeding for colour but I also don't believe in uneccessary restrictions when they have no bearing on the original purpose and occur in dogs still doing that purpose naturally. Because of these restrictions a lot of BCs are registered as the incorrect colours on the main register and there are dogs who are not standard colours who have been awarded championships here.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Janba

[Moselle]

You are kidding right? So you want people to breed yet another breed with no intended purpose (therefore a money making designer dog) other than it's coat colour? How is that any different to what you are accusing us of now doing?

Excellent point. My terriers will never do what they were intended for but I would hate to think someone might be out there wanting a colour not in the standard just because it's 'rare' to have one with pink and green spots and costs a lot more for the fashion conscious who will pay extra for a 'rare' colour. I'll stick with what the standard dictates The standards are all there for a reason.

Was Moselle ever a registered breeder?

Geez....I seriously hope not......or if they are, that they are in a breed where ALL colours are acceptable :D

Yes, I was a reg. breeder of cavaliers.

[Moselle]

Did I not also say that a dog should retain the very traits they were originally bred for? As I said, there are alot of people who would love for certain colours to be allowed in their breed of dog....and if colour takes away from what a dog was originally bred for...well, that comes down to what the person expects of that dog....if you, for instance, do not intend to take your dog hunting, then you are not going to be too concerned if other colours are allowed in the standard? People who want to use their dog for a particular reason can simply stick to the colours that work best. It should be a personal decision....maybe introduce another standard which allows for other colours to be shown in a class amongst themselves instead of disqualifying them altogether. The only difference would be in the colouring not the traits of the dog.

Do you not get that some breeds colour IS one trait of the dog?

I hope that people like you stay out of my breed, so it can continue to function the way it has for many many years and there is no chance of people trying to make a quick buck by basterdising the breed with inferior quality dogs of disqualified colours.

A disqualified colour does not make for an "inferior" dog and it is certainly not a "bastard" either. It's the same in GSD where the occasional white pup appears, most breeders would baulk at that and perhaps opt to cull it but at the end of the day it is still very much a GSD with the same traits and temperament and guard dog abilities as your typical black and tan, for example. That is what I am trying to say....dogs of a disqualified colour can still 'FUNCTION'....THEY may not attract ducks (STILL not convinced of that one, lol) in the case of tollers but for those not interested in that field what does it matter if ducks are not going to take solace in red tollers?

Edited November 10, 2010 by Moselle

[Moselle]

Did you never consider that GRs and Border Collies are the colours they are for a reason?

Australia is the only country that restricts border collie colours and the markings you see in the show ring are purely fashion. BCs have to have some white on them but the patern is not important. Everywhere else in the world they can be any colour and most other countries also accept short coats.

That fact that the standard doesn't say "any colour or colours acceptable" suggests that colour has some role to play. I'm guessing visibility while working is part of that equation?

I doubt it. I agree with Janba, it is fashion & nothing else. The aust standard does not even make genetic sense!

If visibility were a serious & valid factor:

cream kelpies would be allowed, since they are the same colour as re red BC's (allowable)

other countries would have the same limitations of colour

there would not be so many outstanding mostly white dogs both here & overseas

same with ears, fashion & nothing else. Just something somebody decided way back when & it stuck

:D

[Sayreovi]

Did I not also say that a dog should retain the very traits they were originally bred for? As I said, there are alot of people who would love for certain colours to be allowed in their breed of dog....and if colour takes away from what a dog was originally bred for...well, that comes down to what the person expects of that dog....if you, for instance, do not intend to take your dog hunting, then you are not going to be too concerned if other colours are allowed in the standard? People who want to use their dog for a particular reason can simply stick to the colours that work best. It should be a personal decision....maybe introduce another standard which allows for other colours to be shown in a class amongst themselves instead of disqualifying them altogether. The only difference would be in the colouring not the traits of the dog.

Do you not get that some breeds colour IS one trait of the dog?

I hope that people like you stay out of my breed, so it can continue to function the way it has for many many years and there is no chance of people trying to make a quick buck by basterdising the breed with inferior quality dogs of disqualified colours.

A disqualified colour does not make for an "inferior" dog and it is certainly not a "bastard" either. It's the same in GSD where the occasional white pup appears, most breeders would baulk at that and perhaps opt to cull it but at the end of the day it is still very much a GSD with the same traits and temperament and guard dog abilities as your typical black and tan, for example. That is what I am trying to say....dogs of a disqualified colour can still 'FUNCTION'....THEY may not attract ducks but for those not interested in that field what does it matter?

It does when you want people to start breeding just for colour. To retain the colour as it is so infrequent, most of the breedings would be sibling/sibling, father/daughter, mother/son. In the hands of inexperienced "breeders" out to make a buck how will this not produce inferior, unhealthy dogs that will look nothing like Tollers?

It is NOT the same as GSDs, they have other colours allowed as well as black/tan. Tollers which were bred for its colour along with its retrieving skills does not!

Well seeing as buffs end up in pet homes, then it doesn't matter to the owners BUT to want breeders to start producing this colour for the pet market only and nothing else because you can't better the breed by breeding DQ colours is nothing more than being an unethical BYB.

[Moselle]

Did I not also say that a dog should retain the very traits they were originally bred for? As I said, there are alot of people who would love for certain colours to be allowed in their breed of dog....and if colour takes away from what a dog was originally bred for...well, that comes down to what the person expects of that dog....if you, for instance, do not intend to take your dog hunting, then you are not going to be too concerned if other colours are allowed in the standard? People who want to use their dog for a particular reason can simply stick to the colours that work best. It should be a personal decision....maybe introduce another standard which allows for other colours to be shown in a class amongst themselves instead of disqualifying them altogether. The only difference would be in the colouring not the traits of the dog.

Do you not get that some breeds colour IS one trait of the dog?

I hope that people like you stay out of my breed, so it can continue to function the way it has for many many years and there is no chance of people trying to make a quick buck by basterdising the breed with inferior quality dogs of disqualified colours.

A disqualified colour does not make for an "inferior" dog and it is certainly not a "bastard" either. It's the same in GSD where the occasional white pup appears, most breeders would baulk at that and perhaps opt to cull it but at the end of the day it is still very much a GSD with the same traits and temperament and guard dog abilities as your typical black and tan, for example. That is what I am trying to say....dogs of a disqualified colour can still 'FUNCTION'....THEY may not attract ducks but for those not interested in that field what does it matter?

It does when you want people to start breeding just for colour. To retain the colour as it is so infrequent, most of the breedings would be sibling/sibling, father/daughter, mother/son. In the hands of inexperienced "breeders" out to make a buck how will this not produce inferior, unhealthy dogs that will look nothing like Tollers?

It is NOT the same as GSDs, they have other colours allowed as well as black/tan. Tollers which were bred for its colour along with its retrieving skills does not!

Well seeing as buffs end up in pet homes, then it doesn't matter to the owners BUT to want breeders to start producing this colour for the pet market only and nothing else because you can't better the breed by breeding DQ colours is nothing more than being an unethical BYB.

I don't agree with certain colours being bred strictly for the pet market hence that is why I have said that it is about time for the standard to change and allow dogs of formerly "disqualified" colours to become accepted and allowed to be shown esp in breeds where colour is not an issue pertaining to the characteristics of the dog. I have also said that if ever a disqualified colour became acceptable that it be shown with other similar dogs, basically separate from the original accepted colours.

[Sayreovi]

I don't agree with certain colours being bred strictly for the pet market hence that is why I have said that it is about time for the standard to change and allow dogs of formerly "disqualified" colours to become accepted and allowed to be shown esp in breeds where colour is not an issue pertaining to the characteristics of the dog. I have also said that if ever a disqualified colour became acceptable that it be shown with other similar dogs, basically separate from the original accepted colours.

Well seeing as colour is a characteristic of the breed, then I don't understand why you seem so hell bent on saying that Tollers should be bred in other colours?

In your fantasy show land, do the DQ colours eventually go up against the allowed colours?

[merijigs]

Has anybody yet mentioned the grievous situation of white Boxers? White Boxer puppies are usually deaf. Breeders know they are deaf because they don't learn to bark (yip yip) when the other puppies do but instead, just make this horrible yowling noise. That's when the breeders take them for the green dream. So Sad.

[Crisovar]

Uhm not normally deaf no.....some may be but not normally.

In fact the majority of white boxers are simply normal healthy pups. There are lots of furfies about white boxers.

[merijigs]

Uhm not normally deaf no.....some may be but not normally.

In fact the majority of white boxers are simply normal healthy pups. There are lots of furfies about white boxers.

Isn't it true that the genes for white coat in Boxers are also strongly linked to a likelihood for deafness?

[Aidan]

....and if colour takes away from what a dog was originally bred for...well, that comes down to what the person expects of that dog....if you, for instance, do not intend to take your dog hunting, then you are not going to be too concerned if other colours are allowed in the standard? People who want to use their dog for a particular reason can simply stick to the colours that work best.

These divergences have already occurred, Goldens are one breed where they are notable. I suppose we just have to find a point where we stop and say "this is as far as we will go from what this dog was bred for". Too far already, IMHO. There is nothing wrong with the working GR as a pet in a family home.

[poodlefan]

....and if colour takes away from what a dog was originally bred for...well, that comes down to what the person expects of that dog....if you, for instance, do not intend to take your dog hunting, then you are not going to be too concerned if other colours are allowed in the standard? People who want to use their dog for a particular reason can simply stick to the colours that work best.

These divergences have already occurred, Goldens are one breed where they are notable. I suppose we just have to find a point where we stop and say "this is as far as we will go from what this dog was bred for". Too far already, IMHO. There is nothing wrong with the working GR as a pet in a family home.

There is an interesting article online Aidan about breeding for less high activity "pets" in the Golden Retriever in North America and the decrease in bite inhibition that appears to be happening as a result. Sometimes you don't know what attributes are linked until you remove one.

Personally I'd rather see levels of bite inhibition tested in Retrieving Trials than on kids.

Interesting also that among working GR folk, the darker colour is generally associated with working ability. You don't see many pale cream dogs in the field.

Edited November 10, 2010 by poodlefan

[Janba]

I don't agree with certain colours being bred strictly for the pet market hence that is why I have said that it is about time for the standard to change and allow dogs of formerly "disqualified" colours to become accepted and allowed to be shown esp in breeds where colour is not an issue pertaining to the characteristics of the dog. I have also said that if ever a disqualified colour became acceptable that it be shown with other similar dogs, basically separate from the original accepted colours.

If the standard has disqualifying colours such as the toller standard does then breeders shouldn't select for them or they become nothing more tha colour breeders and as tollersowned says there are so few of them that if selected and bred for you will end up with all sorts of other problem due to inbreeding. They can be sold as pets on the LR no problems (except for white shepherds and white boxers but that is another debate).

In breeds like the border collie, where there are NO disqualifying faults, colour or otherwise, in the standard and the non showable colours occur quite frequently and are very hard to select against unless you colour DNA test, it is silly to not allow them to be put on the MR. You can have a ee red dog who is allowed to be shown and on the MR but because the ee red masks the expression of other colours he can genetically be a tri chocolate merle which can't.

It doesn't matter whether you are involved in the hobby of showing and breeding ANKC dogs (flame suit on) or breeding working dogs to help you earn your living, racing greyhounds etc they should alll be bred with the aim of improving on what you have aready and producing sound healthy dogs.

[TessiesTracey]

You're not alone, I don't understand that part either, eye colour is PREFERRED to be dark, but CAN bear some relation to coat colour, and yes nose black, but blue IS included in the breed standard nontheless. Perhaps it's a question for the breed club?

There are blue staffords with 'good' pigmentation, i.e darker noses, eyes etc, but you're right, they're certainly not black black. Good question ... food for thought...

This is probably because when the standard was written people didn't know that genetically it was impossible to get a blue dog with black pigment.

There is that, yes. But as the UK KC have recently stopped registrations of the merle colouration in Staffords, I'm surprised that they haven't altered the nose colouring part of the breed standard to reflect the blue colour that IS allowed.

Perhaps I'll ask 'em

The KC do not change standards. The breed clubs change standards.

That's who I meant - the Breed Council. It was the breed council that was approached in regard to the merle colour and it was them who approached the KC and got registrations stopped.

Interestingly the 'original' 1935 breed standard for the Stafford doesn't mention the blue coat colour, not is the desired black nose is mentioned - only that dudley nose is a fault to be penalized.

Edited November 10, 2010 by TessiesTracey

[Ozstar]

Has anybody yet mentioned the grievous situation of white Boxers? White Boxer puppies are usually deaf. Breeders know they are deaf because they don't learn to bark (yip yip) when the other puppies do but instead, just make this horrible yowling noise. That's when the breeders take them for the green dream. So Sad.

I am sorry but that information is false.

My cousin has been breeding boxers for 17 years. In that time she has had 2 deaf white boxer and considering there is nearly always 1 white boxer per litter, the deafness ratio is extremely low (less than 1%). Also deaf boxers do yip, bark etc.

As for the blue Staffords, there is currently 82 Stafford puppy listing on here, 42 of those are blue/blue lines and the majority of those are all sold on main register. The blues are doing more damage for the breed than any other colour, ie not meeting the standard (and not just the nose), skin issues, temp issues and not to forget the over pricing. When you have novice people who bought a blue pup on main reg and decided to breed with no importance to health, temp, type, only for the money there can never be a good outcome for the breed.

Leanne

Edited November 10, 2010 by Ozstar Kennels

[ellz]

As for the blue Staffords, there is currently 82 Stafford puppy listing on here, 42 of those are blue/blue lines and the majority of those are all sold on main register. The blues are doing more damage for the breed than any other colour, ie not meeting the standard (and not just the nose), skin issues, temp issues and not to forget the over pricing. When you have novice people who bought a blue pup on main reg and decided to breed with no importance to health, temp, type, only for the money there can never be a good outcome for the breed.

Leanne

[Moselle]

I don't agree with certain colours being bred strictly for the pet market hence that is why I have said that it is about time for the standard to change and allow dogs of formerly "disqualified" colours to become accepted and allowed to be shown esp in breeds where colour is not an issue pertaining to the characteristics of the dog. I have also said that if ever a disqualified colour became acceptable that it be shown with other similar dogs, basically separate from the original accepted colours.

If the standard has disqualifying colours such as the toller standard does then breeders shouldn't select for them or they become nothing more tha colour breeders and as tollersowned says there are so few of them that if selected and bred for you will end up with all sorts of other problem due to inbreeding. They can be sold as pets on the LR no problems (except for white shepherds and white boxers but that is another debate).

In breeds like the border collie, where there are NO disqualifying faults, colour or otherwise, in the standard and the non showable colours occur quite frequently and are very hard to select against unless you colour DNA test, it is silly to not allow them to be put on the MR. You can have a ee red dog who is allowed to be shown and on the MR but because the ee red masks the expression of other colours he can genetically be a tri chocolate merle which can't.

It doesn't matter whether you are involved in the hobby of showing and breeding ANKC dogs (flame suit on) or breeding working dogs to help you earn your living, racing greyhounds etc they should alll be bred with the aim of improving on what you have aready and producing sound healthy dogs.

I am all for breeding sound, healthy dogs hence the reason why I found myself in hot water in the past when commenting about a certain subject of which I will not get into.

I don't believe in breeding simply for the sake of breeding, I have harped on about this often....i.e. that breeding should be done to better the breed and not for commercial reasons.