A Question About Two-tone Australian Kelpies

[koalathebear]

I have no interest in showing so this is just a purely academic question from curiosity. Recently, when I went on the Great Kelpie Hunt, I was after a red and tan Kelpie. I was told that generally show Kelpies are solid colours and that it's only the working line Kelpies that have red and tans/black and tans. I emailed a few bench Kelpie breeders and they were only breeding solid colours even though a couple did own some red and tans, they also knew of no bench Kelpie breeders that had recently bred or had any intention of breeding red and tans in future.

If you look at the Australian Kelpie standard (show Kelpie) over in the Breeds 101 forum, it says:

Colour: Black, black and tan, red, red and tan, fawn, chocolate, and smoke blue.

I was therefore very curious about why two tones are still technically within the standard but are generally never considered show-quality? Is this because:

• two tones are less conforming to standard in other aspects?
  
• it is not permitted for a working line Kelpie to be 'shown' and it's easier to maintain a distinction between show and working line using colours?
  
• the intention is to eventually create different breeds that are distinguishable from one another?
  

What makes solid colours 'better' in terms of showing, given that there must have been a reason why the solid colours were given preference. As far as I know, while the dilute colours among Kelpies can have alopecia, there aren't any other traits (health or temperament) associated with the colours.

I'm not trying to stir up debate about show vs working line - just curious about reasons for certain decisions, whether they were motivated by cosmetics, health-reasons, other reasons etc.

Some photos ..

Bench Kelpies

Working Line Kelpies. I know that appearance varies a LOT among the working Kelpies - lots of colours from black through to light tan or cream and that some Kelpies have a white blaze on the chest. I've just picked out some two-tones

ETA: Posted here rather than in the Kelpie sub-forum because although there are a lot of Kelpies in Australia, the Kelpie sub-forum is quiet quiet compared to other sub-fora on DOL.

Edited November 14, 2010 by koalathebear

[asal]

its easy, some one somewhere decided solid colours are "better" for winning.

n winning is where it counts in shows.

for example, read the chihuahua standard, virtually anything goes and even says light colours acceptable but for decades no show breeder wortht their salt would keep to show a light coloured dog with light coloured nose's even though standard said light noses with light colours was permissable.

not to those showing em.. i know i bought some stunners for a song because their breeders considered them not worth keeping. and so such colours can dissappear from a breed, as has with the bench kelpies

well thats my take on it.

anyone else disagree?

frankly i love the black n tans, red n tans, silver n tans, blue and tans... yes i know many working kelpies even seen a cream n

stunning

n the sheep dont seem to find the colour range a problem either..

judges and show breeders are a totaly different kettle of fish.

[bedazzledx2]

Its not just colour....you'll find a difference in body shape too.

I have no interest in showing so this is just a purely academic question from curiosity. Recently, when I went on the Great Kelpie Hunt, I was after a red and tan Kelpie. I was told that generally show Kelpies are solid colours and that it's only the working line Kelpies that have red and tans/black and tans. I emailed a few bench Kelpie breeders and they were only breeding solid colours even though a couple did own some red and tans, they also knew of no bench Kelpie breeders that had recently bred or had any intention of breeding red and tans in future.

If you look at the Australian Kelpie standard (show Kelpie) over in the Breeds 101 forum, it says:

Colour: Black, black and tan, red, red and tan, fawn, chocolate, and smoke blue.

I was therefore very curious about why two tones are still technically within the standard but are generally never considered show-quality? Is this because:

• two tones are less conforming to standard in other aspects?
  
• it is not permitted for a working line Kelpie to be 'shown' and it's easier to maintain a distinction between show and working line using colours?
  
• the intention is to eventually create different breeds that are distinguishable from one another?
  

What makes solid colours 'better' in terms of showing, given that there must have been a reason why the solid colours were given preference. As far as I know, while the dilute colours among Kelpies can have alopecia, there aren't any other traits (health or temperament) associated with the colours.

I'm not trying to stir up debate about show vs working line - just curious about reasons for certain decisions, whether they were motivated by cosmetics, health-reasons, other reasons etc.

Some photos ..

Bench Kelpies

Working Line Kelpies. I know that appearance varies a LOT among the working Kelpies - lots of colours from black through to light tan or cream and that some Kelpies have a white blaze on the chest. I've just picked out some two-tones

ETA: Posted here rather than in the Kelpie sub-forum because although there are a lot of Kelpies in Australia, the Kelpie sub-forum is quiet quiet compared to other sub-fora on DOL.

[koalathebear]

Its not just colour....you'll find a difference in body shape too.

Yes, the bench Kelpies are a little bit more solid in shape but the colour aspect is the thing that intrigue me a little.

[Remarkabull]

I have to say that in my personal opinion the working kelpies are WAY more attractive. The bench kelpies look to big and heavy to run and work all day long. I also like the red and tan and black and tan way more than the solid colours.

My ex-husband has a uncle that bred his own working kelpies (used to own a sheep farm) and he had some beautiful creamy coloured dogs.

[dancinbcs]

I notice a lot of the working tan point Kelpies tend to have a few white markings, so my guess at one reason, is that breeders found it hard to keep the white out when using tan point dogs. White markings are not permitted in the show standard so it might have been easier to just breed the solids.

Also if the first show dogs were solid colours then breeders would have kept to these lines to keep the type. Tan point is recessive to solid colour, only some of the solids will carry the tan points and if prominent sires or influential brood bitches do not carry the gene, it doesn't take long for it to become rare. If the majority of better quality dogs don't carry the gene it simply disappears. If solid parents do produce a tan point the odds of it being the best in the litter are not high.

I would compare it to chocolate colour in Border Collies. It is an acceptable colour and there have been a couple of big winning dogs of this colour over the years but most of the show lines do not carry it at all. Many of the inferior lines carry the colour and lots of breeders have now jumped on the bandwagon to produce the colour as pets but they are not breeding with show quality stock, so will never produce a good quality chocolate dog. This further consolidates the idea that the colour is inferior and it then takes an outstanding chocolate dog to get a look in. In nearly three decades with the breed, I can count on one hand the number of really good chocolate Borders I have seen here in Australia.

Tan point or tri colour in Border Collies is pretty rare in the showring as well. Again a lot of lines don't carry the markings and it is really hard to get a well marked tri, with deep tan markings, that is also an outstanding dog as well. This is the one time that Borders need even white markings because a tri with odd white markings can look really strange.

Sadly fashion comes into it as well. There are unfortunately still judges around that think Border Collies must have white collars or even markings, when the breed standard makes no mention of where the white markings should be. They need white markings and white must not predominate but other than that it shouldn't matter how they are marked. Many judges do understand this but there are some that just don't get it. I imagine the same applies to the Kelpies with some judges being predjudiced against the tan points.

[Hafhafa Hounds]

I think it's partly to do with the white aspect, but I don't profess to know much about bench kelpies at all and am useless at colour genetics!!

Personally, I like red & tan the best - because my Kelpies have always been working lines, I've kept the best working dogs (best as you can pick at 2 - 3 months) and they've always been red & tan. Having said that, we did breed for red & tan, having started with a bitch that colour and only using dogs of that colour too.

We had no black & tans in either of our 2 litters, but in the first we had a "reverse" red & tan, where the main colour was a lighter, creamier tan and the points were a chocolatey red. Unfortunately this pup was still born, and I'm kicking myself that I didn't have the nouse to take a picture. Never seen it before that or again since.

All our pups had some white, from a tiny smidge on their chest through to great big blazes on their chest, plus socks.

Sonia

ETA: the last pup is the mother of the first 3. The first 3 are all from her first litter when she was 3 years old.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Hafhafa Hounds

[Bullbreedlover]

We have owned, shown and worked a kelpie whos lines were both show and working. But he was a solid colour.

My husbands uncle has a strictly working line Kelpie bitch who is two tone.

In comparing the two while they were both maturing my preference was for our boy whose overall construction conformed to my ideal dog. With the two tone Kelpies I have seen in NZ I have found them to be alot finer in bone than the solid colours. I also found that the characteristic ruff and brush tail were very much lacking. A must in the kelpie.

In my honest opinion havng seen both lines here in Australia I still prefer the show lines. I am of the opinion that many working kennels care not for the standard which is wrong. The standard is there for a reason. Yes sure the dog can work all day, general conformation to a point is still there but the main characteristics are not.

ETA

Dont get me wrong. I absolutely love the two tones but I have yet to see one which makes me look twice and say...yes, a nice dog.

Edited November 7, 2010 by stonebridge

[koalathebear]

All very interesting replies! Thank you so much for that!

I had wondered whether or not certain colours had gone out the window because white was linked with deafness, tan and black linked to a propensity for parvo, dilutes linked to alopecia etc so it's interesting to hear of colours becoming 'endangered' or 'extinct' because of certain preferences and fashions. What happens if trends change again and suddenly multiple colours become en vogue in the show Kelpie world again?

I have similar questions for both dancinbcs and stonebridge.

dancinbcs said:

I would compare it to chocolate colour in Border Collies. It is an acceptable colour and there have been a couple of big winning dogs of this colour over the years but most of the show lines do not carry it at all. Many of the inferior lines carry the colour and lots of breeders have now jumped on the bandwagon to produce the colour as pets but they are not breeding with show quality stock, so will never produce a good quality chocolate dog. This further consolidates the idea that the colour is inferior and it then takes an outstanding chocolate dog to get a look in. In nearly three decades with the breed, I can count on one hand the number of really good chocolate Borders I have seen here in Australia.

stonebridge said:

Dont get me wrong. I absolutely love the two tones but I have yet to see one which makes me look twice and say...yes, a nice dog.

When you refer to a "good" border collie and a "nice [Kelpie] dog", are you referring to adherence to the ANKC Standard in terms of appearance and temperament?

In stonebridge's case, I'm not meaning to be provocative but if it is not a "nice dog" then on what basis if your "love" of two tones? As mentioned above, I'm assuming that 'nice' means strict conformance to show breed standard, otherwise how can it be possible to love what is not nice _{unless of course it is a boyfriend and one has the misfortune to have a predilection for falling in love with Bad Boys}?

ETA: Apologies if my question appears disingenous - I really am asking from the perspective of a pet-owner, so for me "nice dog", "good dog" means a smart dog with a good temperament (doesn't bite and isn't so hideous that he makes my eyes water when I look at him :p

I suppose the issue of the two tone Kelpie is that given that it's a working line, its ultimate purpose is to work sheep and so in most cases, the breeders of working lines aren't particularly concerned with colour or overall appearance given that colour seems completely irrelevant for a working dog. Some of the best working Kelpies and border collies are regarded as somewhat 'ugly' by some. Noonbarra are one of the few working line breeders that seemed to be concerned about colour at all, they told me that all their dogs contain the red and tan gene so it seems to be something they care about.

For other breeders, they seem more concerned about working ability and temperament. For instance, on the Working Kelpie Council page the Characteristics and Conformation of the Kelpie page (which of COURSE is focusing on working ability rather than appearance) says the following.:

The first standard for the Kelpie was drawn up just after the turn of the century setting down conformation requirements, which remain valid today. Over the years the original standard has been subject to amendment and addition by the Canine bodies responsible for the conduct of Dog Shows.

Most of alterations have related to superficial qualities such as coat colour, texture, length etc. etc. The different appearance of Show Kelpies today has been caused, in my opinion, mainly by a lack correct interpretation of structural requirements and a practical knowledge of stock work and pastoral conditions.

The production of a written description of breed type requirements for Working Kelpies stems from the need to place prime importance on the dog's ability to perform efficiently and to remove the emphasis on the unrelated and unsuitable qualities set down in the standard adopted by the Australian National Kennel Control and which is used as a guide by breeders of Show Kelpies.

...

Breed type and conformation should not be confused or lumped together. It is easy to place too much importance on ‘type’; the word type in this case being used to describe general appearance. So you get an owner saying ‘Old so and so are not a good type but worth all the others put together’. ‘Old so and so’ may well be superior because his conformation or skeleton and natural working ability are closer to the ideal. The fact that his ears are half up, or he has a white streak on his face, white feet or that his coat is scraggy and so on, has nothing to do with his conformation.

Such things are on the surface and whilst they may not please the eye they do not affect ability Conformation is the way the frame is proportioned and put together; what covers it will not affect efficiency to any real extent. No dog is truly perfect and no one fault could be exampled as the cause of inefficiency. A bad shoulder is not seen on an otherwise perfect dog; the fact that the shoulder is wrong will affect the other parts to varying degree

There is a discussion of appearance:

(About Eyes): From the 'pleasing appearance' point of view the colour of the eye should harmonise with the coat colour. Too much emphasis should not be placed on eye colour with preference given to placement. Small eyes particularly, if badly placed, should be considered undesirable.

And this is what it says about colour:

Any colour and markings historically associated with the development of the breed. For example Black with or without tan; blue (grey) ranging from dark to light, with or without tan; red ranging from chocolate to light red, with or without tan; fawn ranging from dark to light, with or without tan; tan ranging from dark to cream; Tan marking ranging from dark tan to cream and present in varying amounts.

On pondering the issue further, I suppose that the answer to my question is that the reason red and tan isn't really acceptable in the show ring is that red and tan is a product of working lines that are bred towards working ability and not conformance to ANKC show standards. Therefore, the likelihood of a red and tan Kelpie being able to adhere in all respects to show standards is slim and it is for that reason that those coloured Kelpies are not acceptance and not the fact that they are two tones.

As mentioned, all of this is academic to me - I have one mutt and one pure-bred but both are pets only so I really only care about health and temperament.

ETA: Given the variances between show and working lines, I can't help wondering if the two will diverge to a point when they are regarded as two separate breeds.

Edited November 7, 2010 by koalathebear

[kelpiesrule]

Ive only quickly red through some of the comments... but just wanted to say... My boy Jasper, just sired a litter of pups, of which two are RED AND TAN !!! I am hoping to get one of these pups and will be showing it... I also have a fawn dog, Devin, who is doing well in the ring... he was just awarded two runnerup of breeds on the weekend under International judges, with 8 entries and a Grand Champion !! His brother, who is blue, also does well in the show ring... so yes, the colours are out there, but they are not always good dogs... to show a coloured Kelpie you need to have exceptional breeding behind it and bring the colour in. In my mind... if there are 7 colours, they should all be shown.

I think the showies originally went to solid colours to get away from the working dogs.. and the WK people did the same, they stopped breeding the solid colours so they couldnt be associated with the show people... sad really.

Also my boy Jasper is excellent on sheep !

I also think it is disgusting the way the show kelpies are becoming such a heavy dog ! It is criminal and there is no way they could ever work like that.

Jasper's son

[kelpiesrule]

This is Jasper...

[kelpiesrule]

Jasper working sheep

[koalathebear]

Ive only quickly red through some of the comments... but just wanted to say... My boy Jasper, just sired a litter of pups, of which two are RED AND TAN !!! I am hoping to get one of these pups and will be showing it... I also have a fawn dog, Devin, who is doing well in the ring... he was just awarded two runnerup of breeds on the weekend under International judges, with 8 entries and a Grand Champion !! His brother, who is blue, also does well in the show ring... so yes, the colours are out there, but they are not always good dogs... to show a coloured Kelpie you need to have exceptional breeding behind it and bring the colour in. In my mind... if there are 7 colours, they should all be shown.

I think the showies originally went to solid colours to get away from the working dogs.. and the WK people did the same, they stopped breeding the solid colours so they couldnt be associated with the show people... sad really.

Also my boy Jasper is excellent on sheep !

I also think it is disgusting the way the show kelpies are becoming such a heavy dog ! It is criminal and there is no way they could ever work like that.

Jasper's son :D

:D Oh ... I have so much love for Jasper's red and tan son (look at those little golden Kelpie eyebrows! :D, even though he is still just a cute little blob. I can't wait to see how grows up and it would be so great if he's able to be 'shown' - yay for two tones. Thanks for sharing the information and the photos! Is it common for a two tone to just 'appear' from a show Kelpie breeding like that? What a gorgeous surprise.

ETA: I did wonder about the chunkiness of some of the show Kelpies - wasn't sure about the rational - health reasons? Was the lankiness of the working lines not regarded as healthy?

Edited November 8, 2010 by koalathebear

[Kavik]

Here are my lot.

Zoe - Kelpie X

[kelpiesrule]

Devin (fawn) and his brother Smoko (blue)

[Kavik]

Kaos - working line Kelpie

Edited November 8, 2010 by Kavik

[Staranais]

I've never liked kelpies much, but now I realise I must have just seen showline ones, since all the ones I've seen are chocolate brown & very stocky. The skinnier bicolours are lovely!

[kelpiesrule]

Ive only quickly red through some of the comments... but just wanted to say... My boy Jasper, just sired a litter of pups, of which two are RED AND TAN !!! I am hoping to get one of these pups and will be showing it... I also have a fawn dog, Devin, who is doing well in the ring... he was just awarded two runnerup of breeds on the weekend under International judges, with 8 entries and a Grand Champion !! His brother, who is blue, also does well in the show ring... so yes, the colours are out there, but they are not always good dogs... to show a coloured Kelpie you need to have exceptional breeding behind it and bring the colour in. In my mind... if there are 7 colours, they should all be shown.

I think the showies originally went to solid colours to get away from the working dogs.. and the WK people did the same, they stopped breeding the solid colours so they couldnt be associated with the show people... sad really.

Also my boy Jasper is excellent on sheep !

I also think it is disgusting the way the show kelpies are becoming such a heavy dog ! It is criminal and there is no way they could ever work like that.

Jasper's son :D

:D Oh ... I have so much love for Jasper's red and tan son (look at those little golden Kelpie eyebrows! :D, even though he is still just a cute little blob. I can't wait to see how grows up and it would be so great if he's able to be 'shown' - yay for two tones. Thanks for sharing the information and the photos! Is it common for a two tone to just 'appear' from a show Kelpie breeding like that? What a gorgeous surprise.

ETA: I did wonder about the chunkiness of some of the show Kelpies - wasn't sure about the rational - health reasons? Was the lankiness of the working lines not regarded as healthy?

The two tone must be behind both parents... and in this case it is.. Jasper will also be having another mating soon where red and tans will be possible again. I will definately keep everyone updated on this little red and tan guy

Basically the standard says the kelpie should be 'lithe and athletic' so why are people breeding them to look like cattle dogs or labradors !!!???

[koalathebear]

I've never liked kelpies much, but now I realise I must have just seen showline ones, since all the ones I've seen are chocolate brown & very stocky. The skinnier bicolours are lovely!

Ah ... Kelpie aren't supposed to be chunky because they're supposed to be able to walk on sheeps' backs. My puppy (here) would probably never be a good sheep dog because he's far too chunky for a working dog, but we love him anyway

[Staranais]

I've never liked kelpies much, but now I realise I must have just seen showline ones, since all the ones I've seen are chocolate brown & very stocky. The skinnier bicolours are lovely!

Ah ... Kelpie aren't supposed to be chunky because they're supposed to be able to walk on sheeps' backs. My puppy (here) would probably never be a good sheep dog because he's far too chunky for a working dog, but we love him anyway

Yeah, the photos of working kelpies look much more like they have the structure same structure as our kiwi working farm breeds. The kelpies I've seen in real life look almost like little pointy eared labradors, or little chocolate coloured bears, something. That's probably also party to do with them being a bit fatter due to not being in working condition, I suppose.