A Question Regarding Dq And Ethics

[angelsun]

A discussion currently on one of the breed forums I subscribe to has brought forward the following situation:

An exhibitor who bred a dog has shown this dog twice. The dog is a 'non allowed' colour. Once the dog was dismissed, the second time, the dog was given an Excellant and placed third in the class. The exhibitor knows that the colour is non allowed and commented that it 'wasn't the judges fault that they didn't know the breed standard very well'.

The exhibitor is a judge.

This situation has occured in the scandanavian region.

Now, I argue, that the judge, because they hold that position, and as a breeder of that breed, should not have exhited the dog in the first place, and should not have, once the award was offered..accepted it. Certainly the judge should not then turn around and chastise the awarding judge for 'not knowing the breed standard'.

I'm told that in order to promote this colour (of which I have whelped two in the past and have no issues with the recessive colour, but accept it's not allowed and would like to see that change eventually) that they MUST enter shows and do this.

Long story, short....would you as a breeder/exhibitor knowingly show a non allowed colour or clear DQ? Would (if this applies) you as a judge do this?

What would you as just an exhibitor think if this occurred, and what would you think or say if you were beaten by this dog. Remember, we are speaking of something very clear, not tiny and subject to interpretation (as some of the percentage guidelines are when it comes to things like 'no more than 50% of the dog can be white" for example) A dog of a full body colour, not permitted based on the standard.

What if you agreed with this colour and wanted to see it brought forward...what would you do to help promote that change?

Looking for mature conversation please.

[Jumabaar]

It is depressing to be beaten by a dog with a DQ fault- I do think that it lowers my respect for the judge. They clearly have not refreshed themselves with the standards, and when presented with something unusual they didn't refer back to the standard. What else are they letting slip through??

If I were aiming to promote change I would probably try and get my dog assessed by judges regarding the quality, and also go to a geneticist to indicate that the colour is not a problem. Being awarded by a judge who doesn't know the breed standard doesnt really impress me. But having judges critique the animal (outside the show ring) and acknowledge the colour would speak far more to the quality of the dog, particularly if they were specialist judges!

[SparkyTansy]

I would not show a dog of my breed with a disqualifying/non allowed colour. If i was passionate about having the colour allowed i would push for it in other ways through the breed club, presenting the case that the colour should be acceptable and why.

[Showpony]

I would not show a dog of my breed with a disqualifying/non allowed colour. If i was passionate about having the colour allowed i would push for it in other ways through the breed club, presenting the case that the colour should be acceptable and why.

Hi,

I have the reverse problem......acceptable colour, but just never never seen......a self coloured orange Pointer.......which has been mistaken for a mismarked Vizsla by a number of judges......so I have to tell the judges when I go into sweepstakes that he is a Pointer especially if I am following Golden Ret's. I dont bother saying anything for breed judging as it should be obvious.....LOL.....It's hard enough to show an allowable colour that is never seen......wouldn't bother with non allowable colour

Edited April 12, 2012 by Showpony

[mirawee]

I wouldn't show a dog who in my opinion should be DQed. As said there are other ways to lobby for changes to the standard.

[Bilbo Baggins]

IMHO that person is severely at fault, not the way to go.

I would not show a dog with DQ fault.

It's hard enough showing when fit the standard little alone outside the standard.

[SwaY]

The exhibitor should not show it, and the judges should non-award it.

[Missymoo]

I dont understand why you'd keep one with a DQ fualt let alone SHOW it!! Wow, they must have money to burn..

[Aziah]

The exhibitor should not show it, and the judges should non-award it.

^ this.

[Aussienot]

I can't see what the exhibitor's point is if he turns around and bags the judge afterwards. If he's trying to get a new colour into the ring you would think he'd keep his mouth shut and appreciate the win. A judge showing a dog with an obvious DQ fault is poor sportsmanship, IMHO.

[angelsun]

To flesh this out and understand it better:

The disallowed colour is what we call chocolate..it's a chocolate/bronze and tan (like black and tan pattern) It's a recessive that we have found the gene to test to see if we get it. I had two in a litter many years ago..knew nothing about them..was told they were the only ones...have done a ton of learning since then and see now that the colour seems to be coming into fashion.

I have no issues with the colour..it's there..I know where the gene came from and so it was only a matter of time before we saw it and it was admitted to exist.

The colour currently is not listed in the standard or should I say, the four colours that are allowed (black/tan, red and shades of stag red, blue/tan and fawn) and the standard states that 'any other colour is not permitted'. Now this is sort of funny because when that standard was brought forward....too many were stating that the colour simply didn't exist, but clearly perhaps someone knew something the rest of us didn't?

Now there is a faction to have the colour added to the standard....one arguement is that it was there and should be READDED...but in truth, it's not because it was never there in the first place. I"m not sure why suddenly there is this surge of interest, but there is.

I"m at a total loss to understand the reason why ANYONE (judge or not) would show a dog with such a blatent DQ issue. This isn't a white spot, or a curved ear, or a hook tail or something like this.....this is a full colour issue that is clear in the standard...a standard that should be read and understood by judges, and most assuredly an exhibitor.

I put forward the arguement that a dog of 60cm (a DQ) a blue eye, or an undescended testical...all DQ's....are the same as a non allowed colour and yet I"ve been told this isn't the case....that the dog in question, is of exceptional quality but a non allowed colour.....and the bottom line, being that a judge is exhibiting it.

Perhaps I"m being a bit sensitive about all this..but this is my breed and I do my best to protect it's history and appearance and overall nature. I"m not against this colour...I bred two and defended their existance, as I do to this day.....but I feel quite caught on this, because yes, I"d like to see it recognized as a colour to be shown....but to see a judge take a dog in the ring, knowing it's wrong...and being awarded then basically trashing the judge for doing it....and this same judge has a chocolate dog in their ring and disallows it....my head to be honest is spinning!!

Has anyone out there, in any breed....lobbied the governing canine council to put forward a colour or issue that was not permitted, and if so, what happened and how long did it take to rectify?

[SwaY]

Has anyone out there, in any breed....lobbied the governing canine council to put forward a colour or issue that was not permitted, and if so, what happened and how long did it take to rectify?

A few people in Aust, tried to have Merle (Great Danes) added back into the standard - we used to be able to breed from them but not show them.

When it was bought in that only 'standard' colours be allowed on main register the merle was dropped.

The appeal was denied (2011), in Aust we need the UK to change there standard before we can change our here - if I am correct?

[Kavik]

What if the breed is an Australian breed? Eg cream in Kelpies. Crop up regularly in working line litters, not an allowable colour to show.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I guess my question is whether our opinions count for anything?

Colour wars in breeds are rarely pretty, and some people get off on stirring the pot. I think the best course would be to ignore it and assume the locals are smart enough to keep putting stuff in the ring that is good enough to beat it.

Edited April 12, 2012 by SkySoaringMagpie

[kirst_goldens]

if i was exhibiting agaisnt the DQ fault i would have spoken up - even if i beat it! not like they are weighting an ear down and it can be hidden that dog is CLEARLY not allowed in the ring!!!

i would NEVER exhibit a dog with a DQ like this the judge should not have done so either!

i have no idea of a better way to go about it... no help there! we are still trying to get aussie judges to accept cream goldens WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE STANDARD lol!!!!! so really i have the opposite issue hahaha

[conztruct]

I think that the judge in question should have known the standard well enough to know it was a disallowed colour and excused the dog on this basis, but it didn't happen so the thing is that no matter how much we disagree with the decision, and how incorrect it may seem to be, we have to respect the judges decision. There are many decisions that judges make which I've heard many people quite overtly call into question - unfortunately, there's no appeal system in dog showing even for what seems to be a very obvious incorrect decision. That's dog showing - anything can happen. I think in the situation, I would very quietly and politely mention to the judge that perhaps they may like to consult the breed standard before making their final decision and then it's up to them.

As for the exhibitor, I'd be very curious as to their reasons for exhibiting the animal when they know there is a very clear disqualifying fault. However, in the absence of a rule that dogs with disqualifying faults can't be taken into the ring there's no reason why they shouldn't exhibit it and they have every right to so I think should they is a redundant question. Again, while they have the right to show, I'm completely intrigued as to why they would though.

[becks]

I've been on the other side of this. I imported and showed a white mini schnauzer before the colour was put into the breed standard. In the UK we don't have DQ's. That dog qualified for Crufts and also won BOB at an open show under a big mini entry.

Why did I do it? The colour needed to be seen by others in the breed and get them talking and maybe interested in the colour. I originally didn't like them but all their bad press got me doing my own research and I ended up buying one. There is little point in asking for a colour to be added to the breed standard if no one is interested in promoting, breeding and showing them. At Crufts, just before the colour was recognised, a white won DRCC!

Our breed standard states that construction is to take priority over mere beauty points and a colour is only a beauty point (so long as it isn't related to other health problems).

The colour is now recognised and I'm expecting my first white litter.

In scandinavia there is a breeder of giant schnauzers who is starting to build up a gene pool for the black & silver giant and as they are FCI has been showing them in the pepper/salt category (as giants are shown under separate colours over there). In the USA and Canada, they were recognised on their breed standard until the mid '80s and a couple of the 'black and tans' as they were called over there then, did get titles in american and canada.

Given the chance to own a good quality b/s, yes I would show it, the breed has far more problems then coat colour and it would be a shame to loose this stunning colour and not have them available to be bred on from.

(and yes, I do judge, albeit not yet and champ level)

In the OP I wonder if the comment from the exhibitor about the judge not knowing the colour was a DQ, could the comment have been taken out of context?

[Showpony]

I've been on the other side of this. I imported and showed a white mini schnauzer before the colour was put into the breed standard. In the UK we don't have DQ's. That dog qualified for Crufts and also won BOB at an open show under a big mini entry.

Why did I do it? The colour needed to be seen by others in the breed and get them talking and maybe interested in the colour. I originally didn't like them but all their bad press got me doing my own research and I ended up buying one. There is little point in asking for a colour to be added to the breed standard if no one is interested in promoting, breeding and showing them. At Crufts, just before the colour was recognised, a white won DRCC!

Our breed standard states that construction is to take priority over mere beauty points and a colour is only a beauty point (so long as it isn't related to other health problems).

The colour is now recognised and I'm expecting my first white litter.

In scandinavia there is a breeder of giant schnauzers who is starting to build up a gene pool for the black & silver giant and as they are FCI has been showing them in the pepper/salt category (as giants are shown under separate colours over there). In the USA and Canada, they were recognised on their breed standard until the mid '80s and a couple of the 'black and tans' as they were called over there then, did get titles in american and canada.

Given the chance to own a good quality b/s, yes I would show it, the breed has far more problems then coat colour and it would be a shame to loose this stunning colour and not have them available to be bred on from.

(and yes, I do judge, albeit not yet and champ level)

In the OP I wonder if the comment from the exhibitor about the judge not knowing the colour was a DQ, could the comment have been taken out of context?

Hi,

I dont know if the Standard for the breed in question has this statement:

"Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog, and on the dogs ability to perform its traditional work"

This is from the ANKC Pointer standard, we do not have a list of DQ's, but does have noted some undesireable traits.

[dancinbcs]

To flesh this out and understand it better:

The disallowed colour is what we call chocolate..it's a chocolate/bronze and tan (like black and tan pattern) It's a recessive that we have found the gene to test to see if we get it. I had two in a litter many years ago..knew nothing about them..was told they were the only ones...have done a ton of learning since then and see now that the colour seems to be coming into fashion.

I have no issues with the colour..it's there..I know where the gene came from and so it was only a matter of time before we saw it and it was admitted to exist.

The colour currently is not listed in the standard or should I say, the four colours that are allowed (black/tan, red and shades of stag red, blue/tan and fawn) and the standard states that 'any other colour is not permitted'. Now this is sort of funny because when that standard was brought forward....too many were stating that the colour simply didn't exist, but clearly perhaps someone knew something the rest of us didn't?

What is the gene involved? In any other breed bb is brown but depending on the standard it can be called red, chocolate, liver or brown. All bb dogs have brown noses and eyerims. It is however all the same gene even though the shade can vary. So is this just a darker shade of what is called red in a Dobe or is it black pigmented dog with a dark reddish brown coat of the colour known as seal in Bostons and Whippets? If it is then it is most likley caused by the aw wild sable gene and is completely different to a red.

I have Border Collies and all colours are allowed elsewhere in the world. Here in Aust the standard simply contained the colours that the writers had at the time - black, choc and tri but dogs were registered as whatever colour they were and bred from. As people wanted new colours added they started to show them so blue, then red, then blue merle where added to the standard. There is no disqualifications in the BC standard and no mention that other colours are not allowed but the ANKC applied a blanket rule to all breeds to not allow colours not listed in the standard on the main register. This has now led to the ridiculous situation of state controls advising breeders to register dogs as the "nearest colour". In protest to this a friend registered a sable as red because reds where registered as sable before the term "red" was added to the standard. This was an outstanding quality puppy so I handled him at 2 specialties as a baby before he retired as a pet, just to let others see the colour. I did not expect him to be placed but just wanted people to see him.

So in answer to your question. If the colour is genetically acceptable in the breed I have no problem with it being shown but if it is a disqualifying colour like a blue Wei, then I think they did the wrong thing.

It is high time the KCs did a proper genetic overhall of the colours in breed standards for all breeds. They were written when no one understood colour genetics and so many make no sense.

[ellz]

Is the colour an "undesirable" or a DQ? There's a difference.

It's kind of like the old potato of blue, liver and black/tan Staffords I guess. The three are colours mentioned in the standard. Two of them, liver and black/tan are "highly undesirable", the other, blue, is accepted BUT because our standard calls for a black nose and the genes that produce the blue coat in Staffords cannot physically produce a black nose, it's a bit of murky grey area (pardon the pun).

Anybody can show any of the three colours at their own risk. Some judges will put up blue. In GENERAL, dogs with blue coat colours or the blue with white are NOT the same quality as their other coloured counterparts and many also fall short in eye colour which is also mentioned in the breed standard so a kind of double whammy. On the other hand, I've seen liver and black/tan Staffords which are in my opinion exceptional type and more worthy of being shown than the vast majority of blues, but the standard means that only a very brave (or ignorant) judge will put them up.

I have been beaten by a blue which I would have registered on Limited Registration and which I believe was desexed when it was older. At the time, I was rather miffed. Now I can laugh at it because the judge has shown her true colours many times since then. BUT, it was the judges' opinion on the day and apparently she either saw something in the dog which she really liked, or she knew the handler. Whatever.....

I have no respect for people who will blatantly show a dog which does not conform to the standard in colour or certain other areas such as health or if the dog has been "fixed" in some way to enable it to be shown or to live a normal life. I have no respect for judges who do not judge to the standard, unless they can convince me that their decision was made for good reason. And in those situations it is often a case of "better to shut your mouth and look like an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all possible doubt".