Double Merle Rough Collies & Wesminster

[Are You Serious Jo]

Inbreeding isn't a problem if the person doing it has done their research. I don't get the hysteria over COI when the issue lies with how it is used. Outcrossing can destroy some very good and stable lines and one reason I'll never go back to breeding, I don't want to be told how to breed dogs from people who don't know what they are talking about.

[mjk05]

Can you categorically say that the double merle sire is deaf and blind? It is a possibility YES, but there are double merle who are deaf but not blind, deaf and blind in one eye/ear, have normal sight and hearing.

I'm pretty sure that sire is deaf/blind, it said so on the breeder's website. I'm having trouble linking from my phone...

ETA-maybe just blind- but that's definitely stated by the breeder as the reason he can't be shown himself. Sandgrubber's link on the first page links to it.

Edited February 13, 2012 by mjk05

[Lowenhart]

Can you categorically say that the double merle sire is deaf and blind? It is a possibility YES, but there are double merle who are deaf but not blind, deaf and blind in one eye/ear, have normal sight and hearing.

I'm pretty sure that sire is deaf/blind, it said so on the breeder's website. I'm having trouble linking from my phone...

ETA-maybe just blind- but that's definitely stated by the breeder as the reason he can't be shown himself. Sandgrubber's link on the first page links to it.

No where does the owner state the dog is blind. A third party spoke to a co-breeder and posted a message on Yahoogroups, not definitive.

The dog is mismarked with a half white face and unclear markings on the body. That would be the most obvious reason it is not shown.

I agree it is not advisable to breed merle x merle, and understand why you can not register the offspring of such paring here in Australia (even if they are non-merled or are heterozygous merle - 1 copy only, both possible outcomes of such a pairing). But to claim the AKC is somehow irresponsible to let 2 normal, apparently healthy offspring of such a dog be invited to Westminster is a bit overwrought.

AKC might need to rethink the merle x merle litter registration, but to stop the offspring of these litters (some of which can be not merle at all!) from producing is the wrong end of the stable.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'd like to know if the dams of the two Westminster dogs were merle or another colour. If they weren't merle, then I don't see what the issue is, as the merle to merle mating was on the sires side, to produce a dog that would always through merle.

Now if that merle to merle dog , is put to another coloured bitch and no hearing and sight problems result, then what is the issue.

[Jumabaar]

I'd like to know if the dams of the two Westminster dogs were merle or another colour. If they weren't merle, then I don't see what the issue is, as the merle to merle mating was on the sires side, to produce a dog that would always through merle.

Now if that merle to merle dog , is put to another coloured bitch and no hearing and sight problems result, then what is the issue.

I only have an issue with the breeder who knowingly bred the merle to merle knowing that there are health problems associated with this that can be avoided by breeding to a solid colour. I also question people that support this breeder. Which I think is what most people are commenting on.

I am not fussed on Westminster, or the judges awarding those dogs. They were the best dogs from the results so they got invited. Does it perpetuate the problem- maybe but since dog showing is all about the dog in front of the judge you would need to change showing to change that and I don't think thats necessary.

But it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if people didn't breed knowing there was a higher degree of health risks. If merle to merle had no health risks I would say go for it and be merry!

[Lowenhart]

I'd like to know if the dams of the two Westminster dogs were merle or another colour. If they weren't merle, then I don't see what the issue is, as the merle to merle mating was on the sires side, to produce a dog that would always through merle.

Now if that merle to merle dog , is put to another coloured bitch and no hearing and sight problems result, then what is the issue.

GCH CH Taliesin Fashion Forward (Wyndlair Avalanche [Homozygous Merle] x Ch Southland's Long Hot Summer [sable])

GCH CH Wyndlair Cherokee Vindication (Wyndlair Avalanche [Homozygous Merle] x GCh. Twin City Cleopatra [Tri])

Colours of dams comes from AKC stud book.

These merles are "normal" merle.

Stopping the showing of "normal" offspring seems a bit silly. AKC could just look at preventing the registration of the offspring of Merle x Merle breedings.

[Lowenhart]

I only have an issue with the breeder who knowingly bred the merle to merle knowing that there are health problems associated with this that can be avoided by breeding to a solid colour. I also question people that support this breeder. Which I think is what most people are commenting on.

I am not fussed on Westminster, or the judges awarding those dogs. They were the best dogs from the results so they got invited. Does it perpetuate the problem- maybe but since dog showing is all about the dog in front of the judge you would need to change showing to change that and I don't think thats necessary.

But it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if people didn't breed knowing there was a higher degree of health risks. If merle to merle had no health risks I would say go for it and be merry!

AKC allows it. I don't think anyone here on DOL is supporting the breeding of Merle to Merle.

But be aware- Dalmatian, Bull Terriers and Cattle Dogs have higher risks of deafness linked to their excessive levels of white. This could be construed by outside people as breeders ignoring health problems because of looks/colouring.

Even if breeders are routinely testing the pups and selecting to use only hearing normal dogs.

The OP linked to a site that is calling for the AKC to "act" against homozygous merle AND it's offspring. No matter if the dogs in question can see or hear.

*edited for grammar*

Edited February 14, 2012 by Lowenhart

[Jumabaar]

I only have an issue with the breeder who knowingly bred the merle to merle knowing that there are health problems associated with this that can be avoided by breeding to a solid colour. I also question people that support this breeder. Which I think is what most people are commenting on.

I am not fussed on Westminster, or the judges awarding those dogs. They were the best dogs from the results so they got invited. Does it perpetuate the problem- maybe but since dog showing is all about the dog in front of the judge you would need to change showing to change that and I don't think thats necessary.

But it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if people didn't breed knowing there was a higher degree of health risks. If merle to merle had no health risks I would say go for it and be merry!

AKC allows it. I don't think anyone here on DOL is supporting the breeding of Merle to Merle.

But be aware- Dalmatian, Bull Terriers and Cattle Dogs have higher risks of deafness linked to their excessive levels of white. This could be construed by outside people as breeders ignoring health problems because of looks/colouring.

Even if breeders are routinely testing the pups and selecting to use only hearing normal dogs.

The OP linked to a site that is calling for the AKC to "act" against homozygous merle AND it's offspring. No matter if the dogs in question can see or hear.

*edited for grammar*

I was responding to Pav;s post. and justifying what my issue was. I made it quite clear that I dont think its the AKC's responsibility to hold breeders hands, we should be the ones making ethical decisions in our breeding programs- so I was questioning the ethics of the people who used the stud dog over bitches to produce the dogs in question, instead of them using studs from more ethical breeders.

There are people who regularly breed cattle dogs that are deaf and have made no attempt at all to try and breed away from this- I do actually believe that they are unethical too in their breeding because they are aiming for looks/colouring. And I compare them to what the sires breeder did.

So yeah I guess even from the inside I do see breeders ignoring health problems because of looks/colouring- and I chose to support breeders who do their best to ensure every pup in the litter is as healthy as possible. No breeder can garuntee that all pups will live long healthy lives but the ehtical ones try their best!

[Tralee]

I saw a merle at Durack a few years ago just before the start of the working dog event.

It? was a stunningly beautiful dog.

It won, and deservedly so.

When a dog appears rich in so many attributes, it is always going to tempt people to equal or better it.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Tralee

[sandgrubber]

There are two main issues here: double merle, or homozygous for a gene that is lethal or semi-lethal when homozygous; and inbreeding.

I am repulsed by the idea that people do merle x merle breedings so as to produce a MM sire, who is very likely to be blind, deaf, or both. I am also repulsed by the notion that there is a market, among competitive show breeders, for MM sires so as to produce uniformly Mm litters.

A few questions

1. Are there, or should there be, limits on how far people go to get to the 'top' of the show world?

2. Why does colour matter so much? Is it worth risking deliberate creation of disabled dogs to end out with sires who will produce a predictable merle colour?

3. Is it ok to use sires who are disabled or not viable in a normal environment in order to get a desired gene? For example, if someone figured out how to produce a fertile, male, crestie that was homozygous for the hairless gene -- perhaps using extreme measures such as doing an early ceasar and keeping pups going in incubators (homozygous pups are normally absorbed or die at birth) -- would it be ok to create such a dog . . . in order to produce litters that are entirely hairless?

4. If some practices are not ok, who should be the policeman?

With respect to inbreeding, I think there's a lot to be learned. But it would be good to see those going in for very tight line breeding strategies doing some genetic tests relating to the MLC/DLA genes to insure that, in promoting the visible conformation traits they desire, they are not compromising the genetic basis of immune response. . . . and making their findings public.

If 'purebred' breeders cut a lot of corners and do deals with the devil to get their BISS, I can see why pedigree registrations and public appreciation of pedigree dogs are on the decline.

p.s. As I read further, I find that the merle question is pretty complicated. There doesn't seem to be a genetic test for the M gene, and there are crypto-merles. So breeding a known MM dog to a bitch who isn't an obvious merle may result in 50% MM pups . . . my own breed has simple colour genetics, so I may not have this right.

Edited February 14, 2012 by sandgrubber

[Silvawilow]

COI doesn't worry me in the least. I have a had a dog that was higher than that, a lovely example of the breed.

Are the two Collies entered deaf and blind ? If not, then there's nothing to talk about.

Now the big question is, do I believe that link and the obvious smear campaign.

[emgem]

4. If some practices are not ok, who should be the policeman?

I know people think the Kennel clubs should not hand hold people regarding the ethics or their breeding decisions, but I think it would be better long term if they did. I suspect the current situation has arisen because criticism of other breeders is seen as poor sportsmanship, but the general public is becoming more aware of some unethical practices and the health problems in some breeds. So I think the day is coming when outside authorities will step in to police these things if it isn't done internally. The UK kennel club has taken a few steps in this direction so it can be done.

[MalteseLuna]

With respect to inbreeding, I think there's a lot to be learned. But it would be good to see those going in for very tight line breeding strategies doing some genetic tests relating to the MLC/DLA genes to insure that, in promoting the visible conformation traits they desire, they are not compromising the genetic basis of immune response. . . . and making their findings public.

I don't think there are any related tests on MHC/DLA genes in dogs, certainly scientists can use them to investigate immune response or gene evolution but I don't think that any scientific literature has shown that a certain MHC/DLA combination compromises immune response nor do I see this information being useful until there is clear evidence that a certain genotype produces a certain response. I've done some reading on the subject as was thinking of using DLA/MHC genes as a population genetics marker in canines.

p.s. As I read further, I find that the merle question is pretty complicated. There doesn't seem to be a genetic test for the M gene, and there are crypto-merles. So breeding a known MM dog to a bitch who isn't an obvious merle may result in 50% MM pups . . . my own breed has simple colour genetics, so I may not have this right.

I should imagine there are many issues with the merle gene including breeding an Mm x Mm which would result in 25% MM pups, 50% Mm and 25% mm. Unless it is X linked.... what is the inheritance pattern associated with the merle gene??

Has anyone shown that the M mutation actually causes deafness or blindness or is the mutation just associated with the colour i.e. caused by another mutation nearby or linked to the M mutation?? Are there any MM dogs with no blindness/deafness?

[Natsu chan]

There are double merles who are perfectly normal, I've seen a couple of studies that say the rate of defective MM dogs runs at about 12.5%. I've seen a couple of double merles who are perfectly normal and we have had one who was blind in one eye but was not a double merle.

[Jed]

Sandgrubber

Why does colour matter so much? Is it worth risking deliberate creation of disabled dogs to end out with sires who will produce a predictable merle colour

There is no indication whatsoever that colour matters. Probably the matings were done because a better dog was hoped for, and it appears that was successful. Why blame "colour" when you have no proof.

Nothing wrong with a bit of tight inbreeding. That is how lines and types have always been set. I have a dog with 1 grandparent. Proof is in the pudding - he is old now, in good health, with healthy offspring. I have another which is the product of half brother half sister matings as far back as the pedigree goes. One of the best dogs I've owned. IMHO, COI is not as important as the judgment of knowledgable breeders, and once their right to choose is removed, purebred dogs will go down the dunny.

And I don't think colour matters at all. I think the judge chose what he/she thought were the best dogs on the day. International judges usually have a lot of expertise, and I don't think 2nd rate judges would be chosen for Westminster. In fact, judging by results in the breeds I follow, judging was quite even - as I am sure it was in the collie classes.

[Mags]

Judges don't (and should never) judge paper pedigrees. There is a reason why dogs are enter the ring with a catalogue number attached.

This

[Abilene]

AKC is not a membership association like ANKC... hence does not have a code of ethics like ANKC. They are merely a registry. Which has taken me some time to get used to,,,, I am still not "used" to it. The regulations on breeding has to come from the parent club of the particular breed... and a breeder is not required to be a member of a particular breed club in order to exhibit in AKC shows. Not saying I agree with it. But it is how it is here in the USA. Not at all what I am accustomed to after being a member of ANKC for so many years. So in essence, the AKC really has nothing to do with the breeding practices in the same capacity as the ANKC, so cannot be held responsible.