WExtremeG Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Didn't someone say that every 5 years the breed standard comes under review? That's the time to voice an opinion! If it's in favour then they can amend it one would think. Sounds like the American QH and Paint registry lol virtually the same horse different patterns and colours because the QH people didn't want "flashy or excessive white" :) Edited January 30, 2013 by WExtremeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blakbelgian Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 gee genetics can be really confusing. I think Schipperkes have the easiest colors to register. Black-Dominate gene. Then theres Cream, white reds, Amber, Chocolate, Blue. Creams must have black pigment.(nose,feet). Can get a snow nose. If you google these colors, to me the chocolate doesn't look like a Schipp. I saw a red bred and when the dog got older and it turned into such a deep red it was off putting (to me, hubby liked it.) There are a couple of kennels in USA that breed Chocolates. But none here. Blue is a death gene in Aus and lucky it doesn't occur very often, bad skin problems and other health problems. Theres a variety shades of creams shown in Australia. Most breders don't breed cream to cream as you can loose pigment. Can breed cream to black and may get cream pups IF one of the parents is carrying the cream gene. Ophnbark has a gorgeous cream girl-Maisie and her daughter Ella is very pale cream (in my opinion) is very pretty. In SA theres a gorgeous girl that is shown. Some breeders have lost the color gene completly from their lines. BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) If the colour exists in the breed then its a part of that breed, culling out colours to make them more 'same same' seems a bit silly to me, why pretend it doesn't exist when it clearly does? Sometimes those colours don't exist in the breed until someone uses a different breed to introduce the colour. To me there is no rare colour, it's either correct (according to the breed standard) or it is not. I agree. It would be easy to fake document a unreg dog in order to 'add' a new (or extinct) colour back into the breed. A US breeder has been accused of doing that with some brindle GSD's- that apparently cropped up in a litter of normal coloured parents (forget exact details) thing is though...brindle doesn't/can't hide!!!! Edited January 30, 2013 by WExtremeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwaY Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) A Great Dane I breed, fawn with blue mask (mis-mark) Both parents were blue and both carried for fawn, as neither parent was black the mask was expressed in blue. ETA If I had of used a fawn dog with black mask who carried for blue (over a blue bitch who carried for fawn) I could have got fawn's with black masks, Blues and Fawn with Blue masks. Edited January 30, 2013 by SwaY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapvic Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Here are some more examples of the black greyhounds with white spots - I think they look striking! http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1114574&time=1312714648 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1167946&time=1312717167 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1501938&time=1226842600 - LOVE this guy! http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1677413&time=1312714147 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1726654&time=1312715587 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1670987&time=1312718784 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trisven13 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Wow Larissa - they're awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HazyWal Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Here are some more examples of the black greyhounds with white spots - I think they look striking! http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1114574&time=1312714648 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1167946&time=1312717167 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1501938&time=1226842600 - LOVE this guy! http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1677413&time=1312714147 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1726654&time=1312715587 http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?showpic=1670987&time=1312718784 Love the last one...just gorgeous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 gee genetics can be really confusing. I think Schipperkes have the easiest colors to register. Black-Dominate gene. Then theres Cream, white reds, Amber, Chocolate, Blue. Creams must have black pigment.(nose,feet). Can get a snow nose. Or pugs. You've got black or fawn - nothing else :laugh: any other colour in pugs mean there are other breeds in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 If the colour exists in the breed then its a part of that breed, culling out colours to make them more 'same same' seems a bit silly to me, why pretend it doesn't exist when it clearly does? Okay, take the kerry blondes as an example. I have never seen one. The only reason I know there have been some is because of that photo. Most kerry people would never have seen one. Something can't be part of a breed standard if it's so rare as to be near non-existent. For all I know, they're wheaten crosses (though this is highly unlikely given the genetics of the wheaten coat colour). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I agree. It would be easy to fake document a unreg dog in order to 'add' a new (or extinct) colour back into the breed. A US breeder has been accused of doing that with some brindle GSD's- that apparently cropped up in a litter of normal coloured parents (forget exact details) thing is though...brindle doesn't/can't hide!!!! These days that could be easily verified by requiring parentage DNA testing for such an unusual occurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 That's the beauty of the DNA age, parentage can be verified very easily these days, I'm not talking about colours that are the result of a cross I'm only talking about colours which have existed in the breed for decades and haven't been wiped out despite not being selected for, hence why I say colours that are obviously intrinsic to the breed should be accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 If the colour exists in the breed then its a part of that breed, culling out colours to make them more 'same same' seems a bit silly to me, why pretend it doesn't exist when it clearly does? Okay, take the kerry blondes as an example. I have never seen one. The only reason I know there have been some is because of that photo. Most kerry people would never have seen one. Something can't be part of a breed standard if it's so rare as to be near non-existent. For all I know, they're wheaten crosses (though this is highly unlikely given the genetics of the wheaten coat colour). Yes this is where DNA verification is handy, but as my post above I am speaking generally in terms of colours that crop up in the breed, they haven't been selected for but they are still colours that exist within that breed so I don't see how rare and non existent can be equated, its rare because it hasn't been selected for but it does exist. In the old days many white GSDs were knocked on the head at birth, so they became rare simply because only breeders knew that they cropped up, it wasn't general knowledge until people started letting them live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) If the colour exists in the breed then its a part of that breed, culling out colours to make them more 'same same' seems a bit silly to me, why pretend it doesn't exist when it clearly does? Sometimes those colours don't exist in the breed until someone uses a different breed to introduce the colour. To me there is no rare colour, it's either correct (according to the breed standard) or it is not. I agree with this. Nothing is stopping people from taking mismarked dogs that they like the look of and attempting to do as the Quarter Horse and Paint Horse people did, start their own breed! Except for money, dedication, knowledge and things like that maybe? Why attempt to cash in on a breed's name when the dog clearly does not meet the standard? When people start to breed for these "rare colours" it is usually (I would like to say "always" but I guess that might be too broad a statement) the dogs who suffer. Other issues are ignored in favour of the colour, people acquire these dogs for the wrong reasons, mass production can reduce the quality of life of the few "rare colour" breeding individuals and the dogs can quickly degenerate to simply a dog of a "special colour", utility and even form can be completely lost whilst chasing that colour, not to mention the gene pool becomes extremely restricted after a while. As you can tell I am not in favour but I try not to judge those who are. It can be difficult to ignore emotions when dealing with people's breed of choice (by that I basically mean me and my breed of choice lol) so I hope I shall be forgiven for sometimes looking down my nose at people wanting to change breeds for no good reason other than liking the look of a certain colour (colours that crop up in a breed naturally are slightly different in my opinion than colours that resulted from cross breeding, especially when the introduced colour is dominant and could wipe out the original colour) Edited January 30, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Because that is how breeds are created. Undesired traits are culled. With the rare colours becoming popular maybe they can no longer be considered undesirable? ETA it still seems strange to me when they clearly haven't succeeded in breeding the colour out so it must be fairly closely linked to a trait that is favourable or essential otherwise the colour would have been bred out, so to me it means the colour is an intrinsic part of the breed and should be accepted, except in the case of health issues of course. Yes, I think this is a very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) I am totally against cross breeding for colour. And many times the breed colours are as they are because colour is intrinsic to original purpose, or the original population from which the breed developed, and is a crucial element of breed type. However I am also sad when rarer colours are lost just because of fashion, and sometimes it seems to be a whim that has decided which of the original colours stay or go. If there is no compelling rational behind it such as a health reason I think its to be regretted that variety within a breed is foresaken. One example of a lost colour that comes to mind is in Deerhounds, they used to come in sand and red and the standard allows for it, but I have never seen one and doubt they exist anymore in pure form. Edited January 30, 2013 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) If the colour exists in the breed then its a part of that breed, culling out colours to make them more 'same same' seems a bit silly to me, why pretend it doesn't exist when it clearly does? Sometimes those colours don't exist in the breed until someone uses a different breed to introduce the colour. To me there is no rare colour, it's either correct (according to the breed standard) or it is not. I agree with this. Nothing is stopping people from taking mismarked dogs that they like the look of and attempting to do as the Quarter Horse and Paint Horse people did, start their own breed! Except for money, dedication, knowledge and things like that maybe? Why attempt to cash in on a breed's name when the dog clearly does not meet the standard? When people start to breed for these "rare colours" it is usually (I would like to say "always" but I guess that might be too broad a statement) the dogs who suffer. Other issues are ignored in favour of the colour, people acquire these dogs for the wrong reasons, mass production can reduce the quality of life of the few "rare colour" breeding individuals and the dogs can quickly degenerate to simply a dog of a "special colour", utility and even form can be completely lost whilst chasing that colour, not to mention the gene pool becomes extremely restricted after a while. As you can tell I am not in favour but I try not to judge those who are. It can be difficult to ignore emotions when dealing with people's breed of choice (by that I basically mean me and my breed of choice lol) so I hope I shall be forgiven for sometimes looking down my nose at people wanting to change breeds for no good reason other than liking the look of a certain colour (colours that crop up in a breed naturally are slightly different in my opinion than colours that resulted from cross breeding, especially when the introduced colour is dominant and could wipe out the original colour) I have a friend who only likes rotties without a tail, after the tail docking ban lots of people abandoned their breeds because they didn't like the look of the dog without a tail (irrespective of tail damage debates which are limited to a few breeds so not relevant to the point I'm making), now the tail is only one part of the dog, just like coat colour. Some people have a colour preference, people don't generally have an issue with a colour preference so why have an issue just because its not an accepted colour according to a section of the breed standard which is largely irrelevant to anyone who buys a dog for something other than showing? I know when I set out to buy a warmblood I went looking for a relatively rare colour, I figured if I was going to spend a stupid amount of money on a purpose bred youngster already on the ground I may as well get the colour I want, doesn't mean I threw out considerations such as conformation, temperament or suitability for the purpose, just meant I wanted that colour if possible as well as the other things, luckily I was able to get it. I don't believe in breeding for colour only but I do believe you can breed the colours you like without throwing out the baby with the bath water, its not automatically a given that quality is out the window just because colour is a consideration. Edited January 30, 2013 by WoofnHoof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I agree. It would be easy to fake document a unreg dog in order to 'add' a new (or extinct) colour back into the breed. A US breeder has been accused of doing that with some brindle GSD's- that apparently cropped up in a litter of normal coloured parents (forget exact details) thing is though...brindle doesn't/can't hide!!!! These days that could be easily verified by requiring parentage DNA testing for such an unusual occurance. sure- but not when the new colour was introduced several generations back and not recorded accurately ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Yes, legitimate, recognized colour that are actually a rarity in the breed are a shame to be lost. As I understand it, the parti poodle used to be a recognized and accepted part of the breed, so this would be a completely different situation to a "new" colour or a colour that ha always been undesirable. In the parti poodle case I would expect an ethical breeder to lobby for the colour being recognized again and accept the fact that it i not if that is the case, rather than breeding with unregistered animals for unregistered pups. In the case of uncommon but accepted colours being lost I am a little undecided. Breeding for them could do the same things as I have mentioned above, limited gene pool, colour over form and function etc. I guess it depends on the genetics behind the colour, a recessive colour would be more difficult to preserve ethically I think. It would also concern me why the colour is so rare now, there could be reasons such as health or lack of breeding quality animals in that colour. I would not use a low quality dog for breeding just because it is a "rare" colour and hope that I can correct the issues later with more breeding, I would rather use a good quality animal with a more common colour and miss out on the "rare" colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I agree. It would be easy to fake document a unreg dog in order to 'add' a new (or extinct) colour back into the breed. A US breeder has been accused of doing that with some brindle GSD's- that apparently cropped up in a litter of normal coloured parents (forget exact details) thing is though...brindle doesn't/can't hide!!!! These days that could be easily verified by requiring parentage DNA testing for such an unusual occurance. sure- but not when the new colour was introduced several generations back and not recorded accurately ;) None of this applies to the border collie as all the genes to create these 'rare, unrecognized' colours are there in the breed in the allowed colours. That is what bugs me the most about my breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) I agree. It would be easy to fake document a unreg dog in order to 'add' a new (or extinct) colour back into the breed. A US breeder has been accused of doing that with some brindle GSD's- that apparently cropped up in a litter of normal coloured parents (forget exact details) thing is though...brindle doesn't/can't hide!!!! These days that could be easily verified by requiring parentage DNA testing for such an unusual occurance. sure- but not when the new colour was introduced several generations back and not recorded accurately ;) Yes, hence the wording 'these days' ;) edited to add little winky eye, lol. Edited January 30, 2013 by Diva 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