The Reason Why You Cant

[asal]

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards."

good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

[poodlefan]

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards."

good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

Actually I think it is. Type may vary according to "fashion" but faults and disqualifying faults don't.

How any ethical breeder could DELIBERATELY breed dogs outside the standard defies logic. For a start, its a potential genetic dead end. Of course if you have a huge set up, lots of breeding dogs and don't give a toss about ethics "breeding to the tastes of the market" is a piece of cake. Its not like you'd actually show your dogs now is it?

[asal]

Are you saying that it is illegal to breed dilute to dilute somewhere in the world?

I don't disagree that the dog laws are bordering on the insane, but I wasn't aware that they had stretched quite as far as outlawing the breeding of dilute to dilute.

With a one in four chance of producing dilute colour alopecia in some breeds Sandra, I'd suggest its illegal in Victoria NOW!

what a hoot. so now if you get a blue gene alopecia pup you can be charged?????

I have had two or was it three with it?, and apart from looking like they had been poodle clipped where the coat is short, they had absolutely no skin or health issues.

sooo some idiot is now made it illegal for a recessive gene to show its dial now?

do this mind blowing genious realise you still will get it when ANY dog and its partner are NOT SHOWING it but carry it?

get real!

no politicians dont need to live in reality land do they

they just make laws regardess of whether they are idiotic or not

[asal]

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards."

good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

Actually I think it is. Type may vary according to "fashion" but faults and disqualifying faults don't.

How any ethical breeder could DELIBERATELY breed dogs outside the standard defies logic. For a start, its a potential genetic dead end. Of course if you have a huge set up, lots of breeding dogs and don't give a toss about ethics "breeding to the tastes of the market" is a piece of cake. Its not like you'd actually show your dogs now is it?

what you are forgetting, parson jack russell did not write his standard in his head to please a show world that in those days didnt exist, neither did almost every breed registered, they came before the chicken......oops showworld... they did not breed or select for a "show" standard. they selected for what they wanted.

subtle difference but a very importand one. and many people had many different ideas, enthusists drew up a standard to help all have a guideline. but it never ceases to amaze how many different interpartions of the written word is possible too and every interpretator thinks THEY AND THEIR VERSION IS RIGHT.

makes it confusing n tough to figure out the maze of differing opinions.

breeding with the pet market in mind was exactly what was done in the case of the manufacture of the cavalier king charles, they wanted to recreate the doggy in the picture...n the ultimate lap doggie.

pretty much succeeded, pity the snake and rate hunting drives still there. makes it a nightmare if a snake gets int your backyard... cattle dogs are much smarter in that regard in avoiding being bitten although too many still do. but cavies? all in and bite? what bite? oooooo mum i fell sick.

so thats one trait pity it wasnt selected for snake avoidance instead some where in the dim past save a lot of tears

[asal]

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards."

good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

Actually I think it is. Type may vary according to "fashion" but faults and disqualifying faults don't.

How any ethical breeder could DELIBERATELY breed dogs outside the standard defies logic. For a start, its a potential genetic dead end. Of course if you have a huge set up, lots of breeding dogs and don't give a toss about ethics "breeding to the tastes of the market" is a piece of cake. Its not like you'd actually show your dogs now is it?

curious you immediately presume to breed a pet you would "deliberately breed outside the standard" why would anyone do that? last i saw a weimariner coloured whippet could not be passed off as a weimariner???? on colour alone? if they dont adher to the breed they arent the breed last i looked anyway, n its though enough putting good to good and not getting a percentage of :D anyway.

isnt that why so many are pet homed and the breeder actually keeps the "pick" of the litter because they dont come out like identical peas in a pod?

[ellz]

My question is this - what would have happened to him if he was born into a litter of a reputable breeder? Would he have been PTS due to his jaw? I have often wondered. I know dogs that aren't "show standard" could be sold to homes as pets, but would the same happen for dogs with a physical (but not disabling) fault?

He would have been put on Limited Registration and sold to a suitable companion home. Once I decide where I stand on juvenile desexing, then this may also be done....but not at present.

Teeth and jaw problems can be a real nuisance because in many cases, there isn't a lot that can be done until the 2nd teeth come in and the jaw settles. That's one of the reasons many breeders will not guarantee a mouth in a baby puppy show prospect...they can move so much during development and can LITERALLY become a bad bite overnight.

EXACTLY. but your lucky you are not in nsw, I was hesitant to sell on MR for showing, told the person, there is no way you can accurately assssess an 8 week old pup and that the selection was entirly their choice, since i knew from expierence i have discovered the pet i sold has ended up the best instead of the "pick" I kept, can i go back to the pet buyer and say I made a mistake you have to give me back their pup and take the second grade, i made a mistake and this is the pet pup? interesting isnt it? I cant do that, i HAVE to live with my mistake and either keep mr or mrs second grade or rehome the now pet pup.

yet the buyer can say, I think this pup is the quality i want, then accuse you of being unethical when the little bugger does the same thing to them as your pick did to you. its a totaly weird world... why cant the breeder demand an exchange when its the other way around?????

fellow exhibitors told the lady with the dog she bought that MR is a guarantee of show quality and demand a return, even friends advised me take it back. so the buyer today takes no responsibility for their choices around here anyway, even in that case had already told the breeder they were expienced with how puppys can change and was prepared to accept it on that condition. once it stopped winning all bets were off.

very different mindset now. the breeder is responsible regardless, so forseeing the future should be another talent any aspiring breeder needs to have among their accomplishments , one, who told the owner of the pup, mr is a guarantee of show quality, advised me to never sell a pup on mr unless its already has its adult teeth through.

as you said . so right.

I now understand why so few will mr now.

Immaterial whether you live in NSW or any other state. The rules still apply and there are still no guarantees that a show "prospect" puppy will turn out as definitely show "quality". There is a HUGE difference between the two and a breeder who sells a baby puppy as definite show quality needs their head read! That is where a written agreement can help. Whilst not necessarily enforceable in a court of law, it will still show that the purchaser clearly understands that what they have purchased may not turn out to be definite show quality. And likewise, the agreement should set out what the breeder can/will do if the puppy doesn't turn out.

One of the major reasons I rarely place puppies in a show situation now is because of the unreal expectations of some purchasers. You purchase a SHOW QUALITY puppy at the age of 8 weeks and you take your chances like anybody else because the old crystal ball is out of charge and I can't buy batteries for it any more!

[ellz]

The American Cocker Spaniel (in the USA) was described in one veterinary health book I've read as "a walking congenital disaster area". At the time the book was written, it would have been the most popular and probably most BYB or milled breed in that country.

Ain't that the truth! Ask most breeders, even here in Australia where the breed (thankfully) doesn't have the same fanbase and I think without exception most will tell you that it is a "heartbreak breed".

There are two sides to the coin when it comes to breeding them. Sometimes you curse the limited gene pool in Australia because there isn't enough genetic diversity to breed away from some of the issues. But then when it comes to importing new lines, you have the problem of introducing the unknown which may, or may not be, a better option than the devil you already know!

As much as I adore the breed, and have been involved with it since 1986, my days in it are now, for the last time well and truly numbered. Although I'm sad, I'm actually kind of breeding a sigh of relief in many ways.

[poodlefan]

what you are forgetting, parson jack russell did not write his standard in his head to please a show world that in those days didnt exist, neither did almost every breed registered, they came before the chicken......oops showworld... they did not breed or select for a "show" standard. they selected for what they wanted.

I haven't forgotten. Others who don't give a damn about how breed standards were shaped by the dogs' original function have. To suggest that breeds developed for hunting should be bred with no concern for their original function is a perfect example of that. The ONLY people giving any recognition to Parson Russell's ideal are those breeding working Parsons and those breeding registered ones. You have only to look at what's become of the JRT in the hands of those who don't give a toss about breed standards to see a dog that wouldn't have a hope in hell of running with hounds.. flat feet, weak pasterns, east west fronts, luxating patellas. Next person to tell me that JRTs just 'skip' may well get a swift slap up the back of the head.

breeding with the pet market in mind was exactly what was done in the case of the manufacture of the cavalier king charles, they wanted to recreate the doggy in the picture...n the ultimate lap doggie.

Yes, they wanted to recreate the dog in the picture. They offered the prize for that at a dog show. Where you got the idea that it was for any reason other than the pleasure of the person who offered the prize money for doing it escapes me.

so thats one trait pity it wasnt selected for snake avoidance instead some where in the dim past save a lot of tears

How much snake avoidance would the lap dog of English royalty and the aristocracy require do you think? The breed wasnt' developed in a country renowned for its venomous snakes. It certainly wasn't developed to live outdoors in this climate.

Edited November 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[jacqui835]

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards."

good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

Actually I think it is. Type may vary according to "fashion" but faults and disqualifying faults don't.

How any ethical breeder could DELIBERATELY breed dogs outside the standard defies logic. For a start, its a potential genetic dead end. Of course if you have a huge set up, lots of breeding dogs and don't give a toss about ethics "breeding to the tastes of the market" is a piece of cake. Its not like you'd actually show your dogs now is it?

what you are forgetting, parson jack russell did not write his standard in his head to please a show world that in those days didnt exist, neither did almost every breed registered, they came before the chicken......oops showworld... they did not breed or select for a "show" standard. they selected for what they wanted.

subtle difference but a very importand one. and many people had many different ideas, enthusists drew up a standard to help all have a guideline. but it never ceases to amaze how many different interpartions of the written word is possible too and every interpretator thinks THEY AND THEIR VERSION IS RIGHT.

makes it confusing n tough to figure out the maze of differing opinions.

breeding with the pet market in mind was exactly what was done in the case of the manufacture of the cavalier king charles, they wanted to recreate the doggy in the picture...n the ultimate lap doggie.

pretty much succeeded, pity the snake and rate hunting drives still there. makes it a nightmare if a snake gets int your backyard... cattle dogs are much smarter in that regard in avoiding being bitten although too many still do. but cavies? all in and bite? what bite? oooooo mum i fell sick.

so thats one trait pity it wasnt selected for snake avoidance instead some where in the dim past save a lot of tears

You're right, and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Breeds have changed and continue to change dramatically as standards are reinterpreted. There weren't any shepherds with curvey backs before and now there are almost 2 different breeds...

The standards themselves were invented at the time to ensure the production of dogs that could do the jobs their forefathers did. Well, with many breeds this isn't even the case (and in some cases this has led to the breed almost splitting into two - working lines vs show lines etc), but additionally, the purpose of many breeds has changed - why hasn't the standard? What made the standards and the breeds created prior to the last 50 years so special?

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

[poodlefan]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can satisfy their uneducated colour choice for the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D

Edited November 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[ellz]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard.

According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose.

Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market.

I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing.

[ellz]

SNAP to Poodlefan! :D

[asal]

what you are forgetting, parson jack russell did not write his standard in his head to please a show world that in those days didnt exist, neither did almost every breed registered, they came before the chicken......oops showworld... they did not breed or select for a "show" standard. they selected for what they wanted.

I haven't forgotten. Others who don't give a damn about how breed standards were shaped by the dogs' original function have. To suggest that breeds developed for hunting should be bred with no concern for their original function is a perfect example of that. The ONLY people giving any recognition to Parson Russell's ideal are those breeding working Parsons and those breeding registered ones. You have only to look at what's become of the JRT in the hands of those who don't give a toss about breed standards to see a dog that wouldn't have a hope in hell of running with hounds.. flat feet, weak pasterns, east west fronts, luxating patellas. Next person to tell me that JRTs just 'skip' may well get a swift slap up the back of the head.

breeding with the pet market in mind was exactly what was done in the case of the manufacture of the cavalier king charles, they wanted to recreate the doggy in the picture...n the ultimate lap doggie.

Yes, they wanted to recreate the dog in the picture. They offered the prize for that at a dog show. Where you got the idea that it was for any reason other than the pleasure of the person who offered the prize money for doing it escapes me.

so thats one trait pity it wasnt selected for snake avoidance instead some where in the dim past save a lot of tears

How much snake avoidance would the lap dog of English royalty and the aristocracy require do you think? The breed wasnt' developed in a country renowned for its venomous snakes. It certainly wasn't developed to live outdoors in this climate.

are u forgetting there were quite a few who did and have until they were finally recognised as a breed? n that was in my lifetime.... so there have been a lot of generations of breeders who never bred or selected for a show standard, because there wasnt one.. :D they still maintained his dream to the best of their ability.

dont denigrate the majority because of the minority surely?

as for the cavalier my understanding and yes possibily im an idiot like u suspect, its still going because people liked the doggy in the picture, and missed it who had known they existed in a different form to what they had morphed into.

did that make them unethical? and who makes the decisions as to who is ethical and who is unethical and to be despised? are they a race born with this ability

[asal]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can satisfy their uneducated colour choice for the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D

exactly and so the weimariner breeders would have been facing court today.. actually if that comment that is now illegal has been passed doesnt that mean they now will be?

[poodlefan]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can satisfy their uneducated colour choice for the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D

exactly and so the weimariner breeders would have been facing court today.. actually if that comment that is now illegal has been passed doesnt that mean they now will be?

Weimarner breeders didn't go to Court in the good old days - they WERE the law. :D

Breeding should be lawful (and ethical) if they DNA test for anything they can, hip and elbow score and don't breed dogs with known health issues IMO.

[asal]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard.

According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose.

Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market.

I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing.

think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical?

its hard isnt it?

[jacqui835]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can their dog of choice in the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D

"CDA is recessive. That means that both parents must be carriers in order to pass it on, and only homozygous puppies will have it (they need two copies of the gene which causes it). Any colour can carry CDA or be homozygous for it, but only blues and isabellas will have symptoms. There are now tests available for the CDA gene, which will hopefully help breeders to avoid breeding carriers." My understanding is that is all dogs can carry Colour Dilution Alopecia, but its only expressed in dogs with diluted colours. However:

"The same problem can also occur (albeit rarely) on black or liver dogs, and is known as Black Hair Follicular Dysplasia. It affects black/liver hairs only, leaving all other hairs as normal. Because this condition is so rare, it often goes undiagnosed." Results in bald patches on the dog, when the rest of the fur looks fine. I only know of this because there is a black and white dog down at the park who developed patchiness. First they thought he was rubbing himself on the floor or something, but he got more and more patchy as he got older and finally, after about year of vets, he was diagnosed.

So it seems like it would be worth testing for this whether you plan to breed dilutes or not. I don't know how good or available the tests are since no-one here has mentioned them, but given the technology is changing, if we were able to eliminate this particular health problem (as far as I know there aren't any others that are almost entirely specific to dilutes), would everyone still be so against the breeding of blues (and other dilutes)?

[asal]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can satisfy their uneducated colour choice for the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D

exactly and so the weimariner breeders would have been facing court today.. actually if that comment that is now illegal has been passed doesnt that mean they now will be?

Weimarner breeders didn't go to Court in the good old days - they WERE the law. :D

Breeding should be lawful (and ethical) if they DNA test for anything they can, hip and elbow score and don't breed dogs with known health issues IMO.

and thereby is the catch.

no mammal, plant, in fact no reproductive existance is not without its faulty genes.

and a healt issue is not detectable until it happens?

soo

since theres nothing on this earth than can reproduce without a percentage of health issues there is no way any but wild stock can reproduce without the breeder being held liable.

and thats a fact. n not a very funny fact is it?

[ellz]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard.

According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose.

Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market.

I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing.

think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical?

its hard isnt it?

Ummmm...asal....I'm sorry but I really don't get your drift. :D

[jacqui835]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard.

According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose.

Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market.

I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing.

And that's fair enough. Wouldn't try to suggest that anyone should be breeding something they didn't want to breed. But, of the breeders who too find the blue colours attractive. And I didn't say breed dilute to dilute to produce all blues for the pet market. I said take 2 carriers, so there's a chance you get blues but also whatever other puppies you want so your extra pups can earn you money and put yobo breeders out of business at the same time. And you sound like an incredibly responsible breeder. The more people getting their staffy pups from you, the better I'd guess. I'd imagine you'd provide exactly the kind of support and advice new dog owners need. It's just a pity that at this point, if people want a blue, they typically have to go to a less desirable source.