Another Blue Stafford Topic....

[SoL]

Nose leather notwithstanding, I have not yet met a blue Stafford that has, in my opinion, been a good example of the breed standard. For this reason alone, I have not and will not include one into my program even if the standard were changed. If a blue were to be thrown from the lines I have used, then I would most probably desex it and pet home it

Well I have to admire your honesty, to admit that a even a blue dog from your lines would not be a dog that in your opinion was a 'good example' of the breed.

So do you figure that blue colour gene is directly linked to 'bad example' genes?

Hehehe how can a dog be a good example of the standard if it doesn't conform properly? Isn't that what breeding and showing is all about? Producing the BEST example of the standard in order to maintain a standard of quality within the breed and putting out the BEST example of the standard you can to pit against that of your peers? Breeding is about being honest, not being in denial.

I simply meant that a blue dog from my lines, if it ever were to be thrown, would be pet homed because it would not conform to the current standard due to noseleather and would be desexed because of the current climate of byb's and moneygrabbers churning out the colour for big bucks. At teh moment, blues are pumped out for colour alone with no thought of quality of conformation. THAT is why I haven't yet met a good one and THAT is why I would desex a blue if it were thrown out of my lines, to save it from a life of constant litters!

I must admit though, reconciling the standard to include blue noseleather for blue coat is the only way I can think of to taming the current trend. Banning blues would only make the matter worse.

Edited June 9, 2011 by SoL

[Diva]

The AST dealt with this issue in the extension to their standard.

Judges are taught from the Standard not the extension.

if the extension is not used in training judges, why does the ANKC site say that

'Extended Standards are compiled purely for the purpose of training Australian

judges and students of the breed'?

I don't know why, I just know what they are taught.

So do I. Training may vary from state to state, but I'd have to hear from recently qualified Terrier Group judges across the country that they are taught to completly ignore the breed extensions written expressely for the purpose of assisting their training before I'd believe it for a moment.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Diva

[shortstep]

Nose leather notwithstanding, I have not yet met a blue Stafford that has, in my opinion, been a good example of the breed standard. For this reason alone, I have not and will not include one into my program even if the standard were changed. If a blue were to be thrown from the lines I have used, then I would most probably desex it and pet home it

Well I have to admire your honesty, to admit that a even a blue dog from your lines would not be a dog that in your opinion was a 'good example' of the breed.

So do you figure that blue colour gene is directly linked to 'bad example' genes?

Hehehe how can a dog be a good example if it doesn't conform properly? Isn't that what breeding and showing is all about? Producing the BEST example of the standard in order to maintain a standard of quality within the breed and putting out the BEST example of the standard you can to pit against that of your peers?

I simply meant that a blue dog from my lines, if it ever were to be thrown, would be pet homed because it would not conform to teh current standard due to noseleather and would be desexed because of the current climate of byb's and moneygrabbers churning out the colour for big bucks.

Sorry got side tracked back on to the bigger issue of good dog breeding practice.

You know how all the sceince is showing that breeders need to stop thowing out perfectly good genetics (yes it is important to not intentionally increase the inbreeding in closed stud books) for things that really don't matter, like coat colours that are well known in the breed but upset some folks, or in this case a blue noses on an acceptable coated blue dog.

I just found this new statement but The Kennel Club, and I am sure we soon follow and see this come into place down here. This is far superior to the silly method we have here of picking the closest colour on the computor, a colour that the dog is not LOL, and for implying that any deviation from some short list is a disqualifier to full registration.

I think this is a great first step in the right direction of working in reality and getting over it (so to speak). It is amazing how many changes are underway.

KC clarifies its position on breed colours

09 Jun 2011 08:02

CONCERN about the colours included for registration of some breeds has led the KC to give some explanatory advice.

This week the KC said it was aware of the concern, which had become evident since the development of the online registrations system and the consequent need to provide lists of acceptable colours for breed registrations.

There are also concerns about the colours described by breed Standards, it said, and so it has provided the following guidance to distinguish between breed Standard colour descriptions and registration colour descriptions.

Not desirable

“The list of colours acceptable for inclusion on the registration of breeds intends to include all colours which are known to occur within a breed. In some breeds, colours regularly occur which are not desirable but they nevertheless exist,” a spokesman said. “Some breed clubs and breeders have expressed concern that dogs who are of undesirable colours are being registered, but the view is that breeders need to be aware of the precise colour of dogs as far as possible, so the registration system aims to accommodate this.

“However, we do not wish to include in the registration system inappropriate colour descriptions or terminology which gives rise to ‘fashion’ colours.

“We will not refuse registrations on grounds of colour unless there is a health-related restriction in place. Therefore, any dogs who are of colours not listed will be registered currently as ‘colour not KC recognised.”

The KC will continue to revise the lists in place, and breed clubs and breed councils are reminded that they can apply for any changes to the current lists for registration. The list of colours for each breed can be seen at www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breeds/Default.aspx. “We have records of colours used in each breed so that we can review whether there has been significant demand for any particular colour in the past decade,” the spokesman said.

“The purpose of each breed’s Standard is to describe the ‘ideal’ dog, in terms of judging and breeding, and therefore the colour clause should state the desirable colours for the breed in this context.

“Some Standards may state that some colours are more desirable than others, but on the whole a Standard should state that which is desired or permissible, rather than making negative statements. Standards do not contain any disqualifying statements.

“The two systems should be viewed separately – they serve different purposes and there may therefore be some divergence in the colours given in the breed Standard compared with those on the lists of acceptable colours for registration.”

Edited June 9, 2011 by shortstep

[NuggyWuggy]

Things are not going to change just because a couple of people from the other side of the world send an email

Ofcourse not, I never expected it would - sending an email got me the information I was after though, just because it wasn't what I would have liked to hear doesn't make it a complete waste of time.

[NuggyWuggy]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

[Sandra777]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing.

Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees.

Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me.

[NuggyWuggy]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing.

Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees.

Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me.

So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice.

What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement.

[Sandra777]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing.

Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees.

Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me.

So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice.

What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement.

Believing that a dog can't be completely woeful and still be a champion does in itself indicate a considerable lack of experience.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Sandra777

[NuggyWuggy]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing.

Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees.

Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me.

So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice.

What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement.

Believing that a dog can't be completely woeful and still be a champion does in itself indicate a considerable lack of experience.

Doesn't it depend on opinions? - obviously the judges that awarded it the wins that lead to it attaining it's title thought it wasn't completely woeful, it doesn't matter if you did - your opinion is not the only one and obviously not the one that matters in those cases.

Seen as this topic isn't about my level of experience or yours, I'm not going to bang on about it.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Nuggywuggywazabear

[mr.mister]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing.

Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees.

Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me.

So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice.

What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement.

A dog can become a champion without necessarily being a great example of the breed, but simply by being shown often. A dog gets points when it places (showies, please correct me if i'm wrong!), and if there are only a few entries and a judge doesn't non-award a less than great dog, then that dog will get points that upon accumulating enough will lead to a champion title. As far as I know a grand champion title is harder to get and is a better indicator of how good a dog is (again correct me if I'm wrong).

Edited June 10, 2011 by mr.mister

[whiskedaway]

The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

That's an interesting statement - just what is the point then of these competitions if the achievements and wins mean nothing, being no reflection on a dogs "actual quality"??

Obviously you have very little experience with conformation showing.

Attending dog shows is about comparing your dogs with another person's dogs through the use of a judge who (allegedly) knows something about the breed. I never said WINS meant nothing I said titles gained don't necessarily mean the dog is the bees knees.

Me - I'd rather own and breed from dogs which are consistently placed under breed specialists in the best of company. Whether these wins and placings lead to a title is pretty much irrelevant to me.

So me thinking that wins and achievements in the show ring leading to a dog attaining Championship status, indicates that a dog can't be completely woeful, automatically means that I have very little experience with conformation showing - nice.

What I originally said was that there have been some blues titled so they can't all be completely woeful, not that they must be the bees knees or top quality - just not completely woeful. No need for judgements of my experience based on that statement.

A dog can become a champion without necessarily being a great example of the breed, but simply by being shown often. A dog gets points when it places (showies, please correct me if i'm wrong!), and if there are only a few entries and a judge doesn't non-award a less than great dog, then that dog will get points that upon accumulating enough will lead to a champion title. As far as I know a grand champion title is harder to get and is a better indicator of how good a dog is (again correct me if I'm wrong).

You're correct. A dog can get their championship without ever beating another dog. This is common in rare breeds (however that does NOT mean that they're not good examples of the breed) but a breed that isn't rare can get points by not ever coming up against another dog by travelling to small shows where very few dogs are exhibited.

[NuggyWuggy]

I'm still confused as to how saying that a dog isn't completely woeful translates to "the bees knees" or "a great example of the breed" ....but there you go.

I would imagine that a Grand Champion title is a better indicator of how good a dog is too - I had read on a website that a certain blue Stafford was halfway there at 18mths of age, whether that's true or not who knows.

It would be interesting to know then if the blue dogs that have been titled got their points by not ever coming up against another dog or in the worst of company - there are SO many Staffords being exhibited at all the shows I've been to.

I guess if it's that easy to get a not completely woeful dog titled, I should have tried it with my boy instead of getting him desexed

Edited June 11, 2011 by Nuggywuggywazabear

[Sandra777]

I'm still confused as to how saying that a dog isn't completely woeful translates to "the bees knees" or "a great example of the breed" ....but there you go.

I think you would be less confused if you had actually read and understood my original statement instead of taking one part and using it out of context.. my original answer to you was...

I would have a look at the blues which are champions and study their actual virtues. Then have a look at their show record - have they ever won in top company, have they ever been placed at a breed speciality, what is the standard of competition they have been shown against. The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

The bolded bits are the really relevant bits to the point I was making, not your fixation on titles

[NuggyWuggy]

I'm still confused as to how saying that a dog isn't completely woeful translates to "the bees knees" or "a great example of the breed" ....but there you go.

I think you would be less confused if you had actually read and understood my original statement instead of taking one part and using it out of context.. my original answer to you was...

I would have a look at the blues which are champions and study their actual virtues. Then have a look at their show record - have they ever won in top company, have they ever been placed at a breed speciality, what is the standard of competition they have been shown against. The fact that a dog is a champion is really no reflection on it's actual quality.

The bolded bits are the really relevant bits to the point I was making, not your fixation on titles

:rolleyes: Oh dear....ok Sandra777, thanks so much for clearing that up, I guess I just had so much trouble seeing past my fixation on titles ( Ha, I just realised this topic has nothing to do with titles....hmmm, maybe I should rename it!) that I failed to actually read and understand your original statement - it probably has something to do with my very little experience with conformation showing!

How about you let it go now and move on

[mr.mister]

Sandra777 was just trying to point out that the bolded bits are the important aspects of a dog's show career. If a dog is titled but has only done so by being entered in a category with very low numbers, no specialty shows etc then that is not necessarily a good dog just because it is a Champion.

[Gayle.]

Doesn't the judge signing the challenge certificate testify that the dog named on the certificate is, in their opinion of a good enough quality to carry the title of champion? That has GOT to mean something, they don't have to award challenges if the dogs aren't good enough. And there are heaps of Staffies being shown........they are a huge class even at quite small shows, so how would a poor quality dog get enough points for a title?

[Sandra777]

realised this topic has nothing to do with titles

Your post is about changing the standard by which dogs are bred and judged and gain titles.

If you have no interest in showing why do you care what the breed standard says?

There have been many thousands of blues bred in Australia and the UK in the last few years yet you can count the number who have won anything in the show ring, let alone gained their title, on the fingers of one hand. Do you honestly believe this is ONLY because the standard requires a black nose?

Blues have won in the UK. Blues have won in Australia. Blues have won under specialists in both the UK and Australia. The standard says nose black yet these dogs still won...... so where do you really think the problem lies - with the standard's odd requirement for a black nose regardless of colour which is obviously not strictly adhered to (otherwise no blue would ever have won anywhere) or perhaps there is some other explanation for this almost total lack of success?

When the majority of people who breed blues get their act together and show they actually want to breed good quality healthy Staffords, then perhaps they will get support to have the standard changed.

[shortstep]

When the majority of people who breed blues get their act together and show they actually want to breed good quality healthy Staffords, then perhaps they will get support to have the standard changed.

Can you show us the data you are using to imply that all these blue dogs are not healthy or proof that shows the breeders are at the root of what ever health problems it is that you are going to show data for?

The only known health problem with blues is dilution alopeacia, but that would have nothing to do with the breeders other than the choice to breed blues.

BTW I don't think for one min that dogs not going to dog shows or not doing as well in the ring or beating the dogs you think they should beat or not performing in the way you might want in your dogs to perform, would have anything to do with them being unhealthy.

So I am very interested to see the data that shows these 'thousands' of blue dogs bred by breeder who you accuse of not haveing their 'act together' in Australia are unhealthy.

Amazing too that this is going on and you know about it yet the breed club and ANKC has done nothing to stop it. Another potential animal welfare concern in ANKC pedigreed dogs.

Edited June 11, 2011 by shortstep

[Sandra777]

Er Shortstep Good quality healthy Staffords is an all in one - not good quality OR healthy - but good quality healthy Staffords being the minimum expectation for someone breeding.

There's no implication that blues are not healthy in that sentence.

[shortstep]

Er Shortstep Good quality healthy Staffords is an all in one - not good quality OR healthy - but good quality healthy Staffords being the minimum expectation for someone breeding.

There's no implication that blues are not healthy in that sentence.

Oh Ok, so you are saying that they are in fact healthy dogs, but they are not quality. What exactly does not being quality mean? Other then your idea that they do not do well in the show ring which is meaningless when it comes to accessing quality, what exaclty is their lack of quality. So 1000's of low quality blue dogs is also something I would like to see data for, as it is a very big accusation about a lot of ANKC breeders and their dogs(not that that is unsual as KC breeders sometimes seem to thrive on taking pot shots at each other). Seems like just more unfounded accusations to me, so I hope you have some way to back this up with data other then your personal accusations and opinions about all of these breeders.

So is there another real welfare issue brewing in ANKC on avoidable lack of quality in this breed or is it just that these folks don't want play by your rules and are not responsive to your ideas.

BTW I would bet they do not care what the standard says about nose colour, so are not motived to play by your rules.

Edited June 11, 2011 by shortstep