german_shep_fan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 People give Lab breeders sh#t for producing chocolates. This is the equivalent of producing a chocolate, knowing that you cannot do so without a high probability of blindness or deafness. To say nothing about the popular sires problem. Sorry not trying to hijack but I've not heard about choc labs before. We have a couple in the extended family with behavioural issues. Can you give me more info on chocolate issues please (PM is fine if you prefer)? Some say its true and others say it is a myth. I think it will depend on who you talk to regarding the chocs. "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging" Perhaps its time they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging" Perhaps its time they did. What a ridiculous suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RallyValley Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 People give Lab breeders sh#t for producing chocolates. This is the equivalent of producing a chocolate, knowing that you cannot do so without a high probability of blindness or deafness. To say nothing about the popular sires problem. Sorry not trying to hijack but I've not heard about choc labs before. We have a couple in the extended family with behavioural issues. Can you give me more info on chocolate issues please (PM is fine if you prefer)? Some say its true and others say it is a myth. I think it will depend on who you talk to regarding the chocs. "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging" Perhaps its time they did. Yes so they can award dogs based on who their sire is and if they have Gr Ch. in front of their name... It's up to exhibitors to be ethical in their programs, it's not up to show judges to police this. Plus a name is a name, if they were not a Collie person they would probably just see the sire and read some words, not go oooh that dog is deaf and blind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I have had a read of some of the bloggers writings today....sometimes people passionate about a subject get a bit crazy...that whole blog site oozes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging"Perhaps its time they did. Yes, because that would make it really objective now wouldn't it. NOT They're judging conformaton to a standard, not a pedigree for heavens sake. You don't need dogs if you're judging pedigrees. Just submit the papers and let them decide. Because EVERY dog lives up to the potential of its pedigree now doesn't it. ;) Edited February 13, 2012 by Telida Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 What distressed me in this was - the AKC gave these dogs high honors in 2011, and is doing so again in 2012; thus in effect, the AKC is endorsing merle to merle breedings - it is all about colour. The US breed standard says about colour: The four recognized colors are "Sable and White," "Tri-color," "Blue Merle" and "White." There is no preference among them." But obviously the show world is giving strong preference to the blue merle . . . People give Lab breeders sh#t for producing chocolates. This is the equivalent of producing a chocolate, knowing that you cannot do so without a high probability of blindness or deafness. To say nothing about the popular sires problem. I don't get this bit? The AKC invites the 5 top ranked dogs. 2 blue merle dogs happened to be in the top 5 - this is because show judges gave them wins, not because the AKC chooses the top 5 dogs based on colour or the like.... You are exactly right RallyValley, but sandgrubber doesn't show her dogs so perhaps she didn't know, I'm sure she wouldn't use this little smear campaign as an excuse to deliberately denigrate the AKC ;) Are you saying the AKC has nothing to do with who becomes a judge? Do you think a breed specialist judge won't be familiar with the pedigrees of the national winners in the breed? Does the AKC not have it in its power to ban merle to merle breeding? Are you saying judges are colour blind? I think 3 of the top 5 are blue merle . . . two have the same sire . . . who was the product of a deliberate merle to merle mating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalteseLuna Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 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. Not a smear campaign, unless you believe that anyone who argues for maintaining diversity is out to smear people who inbreed. A science-oriented blogger with a biology background and a deep commitment to Border Collies. . . .which extends to other herding breeds. He is deeply worried by the popular sire effect. The two collies were not entered, they were invited to enter. Creme de la creme. They aren't blind or deaf, but they were both sired by a dog who is blind and deaf. I don't see how the blog is "science-orientated"... There is no biology background that I can detect. They were invited based on their statistics/leading rank not their colour/breeding etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benshiva Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging" Perhaps its time they did. What a ridiculous suggestion. AGREED!! I'd give up showing if it ever came to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Forget the blog: should people be allowed to mate melre to merle to produce a stud that is always going to have merle offspring (which is why the breeder bred this stud)? The solution is very simple: ban merle to merle matings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
german_shep_fan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging"Perhaps its time they did. Yes, because that would make it really objective now wouldn't it. NOT They're judging conformaton to a standard, not a pedigree for heavens sake. You don't need dogs if you're judging pedigrees. Just submit the papers and let them decide. Because EVERY dog lives up to the potential of its pedigree now doesn't it. ;) Misunderstood, i meant as the OP was saying for overuse of a certain sire and inbreeding ect. Any dog can fit a breed standard yet be highly inbred ect. That is what i have an issue with as the OP was saying. I don't care ppl can bash,my views are v unpopular, its all good :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 People give Lab breeders sh#t for producing chocolates. This is the equivalent of producing a chocolate, knowing that you cannot do so without a high probability of blindness or deafness. To say nothing about the popular sires problem. Sorry not trying to hijack but I've not heard about choc labs before. We have a couple in the extended family with behavioural issues. Can you give me more info on chocolate issues please (PM is fine if you prefer)? All I was saying about choco labs is that, because many Australian breeders charge more for chocolates than yellows or blacks, some people make snide remarks about breeders going for chocolates to make money. This may be true in some cases. No question, there are some badly bred chocolates in Australia. There are also some badly bred yellows and blacks. On the other hand, there are also some people who have put a lot of time and effort into bringing up the quality of chocolates in Australasia. In Europe and the US, chocolates are not much different than other colours in outcomes, popularity, or price. My point, which I guess I made poorly, was that people carp about breeding for colour in Labs, when there is are no health consequences . . . why are they so tolerant of breeding for colour when the fashionable colour involves a lethal semi-dominant gene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowenhart Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Are you saying the AKC has nothing to do with who becomes a judge? Do you think a breed specialist judge won't be familiar with the pedigrees of the national winners in the breed? Does the AKC not have it in its power to ban merle to merle breeding? Are you saying judges are colour blind? I think 3 of the top 5 are blue merle . . . two have the same sire . . . who was the product of a deliberate merle to merle mating. 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. AKC does decide who becomes a judge BUT the breeders decide who gets bred and shown. You can only judge from what is infront of you. If it so happens the most campaigned dogs in Collies that year happened to have a colour bias to Blue Merle then more Blue Merle's appear in the top listings. Another year it could be Sables left right and centre, do you blame the judges then? AKC can ban merle to merle. But it can't stop people campaigning 2 dogs because they are half siblings. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I've seen the top 2 dogs in a breed be Father/Son, Brother/Sister. It means that those dogs were campaigned the most AND were winning regularly. Maybe they are excellent examples of the breed and it so happens that it wasn't the only one in it's litter or from the sire etc. Judges don't (and should never) judge paper pedigrees. There is a reason why dogs are enter the ring with a catalogue number attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Are you saying the AKC has nothing to do with who becomes a judge? Do you think a breed specialist judge won't be familiar with the pedigrees of the national winners in the breed? Does the AKC not have it in its power to ban merle to merle breeding? Are you saying judges are colour blind? I think 3 of the top 5 are blue merle . . . two have the same sire . . . who was the product of a deliberate merle to merle mating. 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. AKC does decide who becomes a judge BUT the breeders decide who gets bred and shown. You can only judge from what is infront of you. If it so happens the most campaigned dogs in Collies that year happened to have a colour bias to Blue Merle then more Blue Merle's appear in the top listings. Another year it could be Sables left right and centre, do you blame the judges then? AKC can ban merle to merle. But it can't stop people campaigning 2 dogs because they are half siblings. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I've seen the top 2 dogs in a breed be Father/Son, Brother/Sister. It means that those dogs were campaigned the most AND were winning regularly. Maybe they are excellent examples of the breed and it so happens that it wasn't the only one in it's litter or from the sire etc. Judges don't (and should never) judge paper pedigrees. There is a reason why dogs are enter the ring with a catalogue number attached. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Are you saying the AKC has nothing to do with who becomes a judge? Do you think a breed specialist judge won't be familiar with the pedigrees of the national winners in the breed? Does the AKC not have it in its power to ban merle to merle breeding? Are you saying judges are colour blind? I think 3 of the top 5 are blue merle . . . two have the same sire . . . who was the product of a deliberate merle to merle mating. 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. AKC does decide who becomes a judge BUT the breeders decide who gets bred and shown. You can only judge from what is infront of you. If it so happens the most campaigned dogs in Collies that year happened to have a colour bias to Blue Merle then more Blue Merle's appear in the top listings. Another year it could be Sables left right and centre, do you blame the judges then? AKC can ban merle to merle. But it can't stop people campaigning 2 dogs because they are half siblings. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I've seen the top 2 dogs in a breed be Father/Son, Brother/Sister. It means that those dogs were campaigned the most AND were winning regularly. Maybe they are excellent examples of the breed and it so happens that it wasn't the only one in it's litter or from the sire etc. Judges don't (and should never) judge paper pedigrees. There is a reason why dogs are enter the ring with a catalogue number attached. Thanks for that post Lowenhart, saves me replying. I absolutely agree with what you say :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Misunderstood, i meant as the OP was saying for overuse of a certain sire and inbreeding ect. Any dog can fit a breed standard yet be highly inbred ect. That is what i have an issue with as the OP was saying. I don't care ppl can bash,my views are v unpopular, its all good :D I have no problems at all with inbreeding if it's done by an experienced breeder who knows their lines inside and out, my foundation bitch was from a father/daughter mating. BTW how many litters have you bred german shep fan? Have they all been outcrossed matings which produced super healthy pups with great temperaments? You've never mated to an outcross and had a little nasty that you'd never had before crop up in some of your puppies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
german_shep_fan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Misunderstood, i meant as the OP was saying for overuse of a certain sire and inbreeding ect. Any dog can fit a breed standard yet be highly inbred ect. That is what i have an issue with as the OP was saying. I don't care ppl can bash,my views are v unpopular, its all good :D I have no problems at all with inbreeding if it's done by an experienced breeder who knows their lines inside and out, my foundation bitch was from a father/daughter mating. BTW how many litters have you bred german shep fan? Have they all been outcrossed matings which produced super healthy pups with great temperaments? You've never mated to an outcross and had a little nasty that you'd never had before crop up in some of your puppies? Then i am afraid i will have to agree to disagree with you. No need to get personal, i wasn't throwing a personal insult at you. But since you feel you must know, no i don't inbreed my dogs and yes i have great temp dogs who were all big and healthy. I don't like or feel the need to get into arguements with strangers on boards such as this, so that is all i am going to say, your bus is yours and mine is mine, wether we agree with each other or not :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Then i am afraid i will have to agree to disagree with you. No need to get personal, i wasn't throwing a personal insult at you. But since you feel you must know, no i don't inbreed my dogs and yes i have great temp dogs who were all big and healthy. I don't like or feel the need to get into arguements with strangers on boards such as this, so that is all i am going to say, your bus is yours and mine is mine, wether we agree with each other or not :) Oh I'm so sorry german shep fan, I think you've misunderstood my post, I certainly wasn't 'getting personal' and I definitely didn't think you were throwing a personal insult at me, I'm not that sensitive :) I was simply wondering how many litters you'd had as you always make a number of comments in threads of this nature, obviously you've had a great deal of experience in these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 "Unless judges have pedigrees in front of them, they're not going to know the ancestry of the dogs they're judging" Perhaps its time they did. What a ridiculous suggestion. AGREED!! I'd give up showing if it ever came to that! It's bad enough when you feel faces are being judged! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
german_shep_fan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Then i am afraid i will have to agree to disagree with you. No need to get personal, i wasn't throwing a personal insult at you. But since you feel you must know, no i don't inbreed my dogs and yes i have great temp dogs who were all big and healthy. I don't like or feel the need to get into arguements with strangers on boards such as this, so that is all i am going to say, your bus is yours and mine is mine, wether we agree with each other or not :) Oh I'm so sorry german shep fan, I think you've misunderstood my post, I certainly wasn't 'getting personal' and I definitely didn't think you were throwing a personal insult at me, I'm not that sensitive :) I was simply wondering how many litters you'd had as you always make a number of comments in threads of this nature, obviously you've had a great deal of experience in these matters. I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not as it is hard to tell on the net But if you are not, then thank you very much :) I am only pretty young myself and am just starting out on my own so to speak but been with fam breeders all my life :) lol i am well hated by specialty show ppl in my breed as i am pretty open mouthed about my views on where the breed is headed and i feel the show ring in that regard has a lot to answer for. Again that is a personal opinion of mine and i am more then happy for ppl to disagree with me and my views as i do with theirs :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not as it is hard to tell on the net But if you are not, then thank you very much :) I am only pretty young myself and am just starting out on my own so to speak but been with fam breeders all my life :) lol i am well hated by specialty show ppl in my breed as i am pretty open mouthed about my views on where the breed is headed and i feel the show ring in that regard has a lot to answer for. Again that is a personal opinion of mine and i am more then happy for ppl to disagree with me and my views as i do with theirs :) Me sarcastic Surely you know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. You still haven't told me how many litters you've had :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now