Colour Not To Standard?

[YOLO]

Been thinking about this a lot lately (don't know why.)

I feel the number one goal in breeding should be health. Then temperament.

After that, breeding to a standard is obviously the desirable outcome.

But I am starting to wonder about the fixation on colour.

I have owned two Chocolate Flat-Coats. Neither would have done well in the ring, and theoretically should not be bred (never an issue) because Chocolate is not an accepted colour.

The accepted colour is Liver, and mine are definitely NOT Flat-Coat Liver. I have seen other dogs called liver that were close to chocolate, but in Flat-Coats Liver is redder with an almost plum tinge.

I have also owned two Black Flatties, however in dogs with a close ancestor who is Liver, it is common to get liver flashes. Ralph's Dam was Liver, so he had a fair bit, and whilst I don't know Chloe's parentage, she also has flashes. These also would make a dog struggle in the ring and be "unsuitable" for breeding, as the black is meant to be solid.

Lastly, despite what we think we know about the genetics, it is still possible for Flatties to have golden pups. I have seen it more often in very large litters, but I guess that would just be a function of the numerical odds being small. Why should such a dog be excluded, just because of the colour of their coat?

[Steph M]

I think the first thing that jumps out at me here is health, temperament first and standard last. To be honest, if we cross standard out we open ourselves up to dogs who are not fit to work, which is what the flat coat is bred for. I have had many healthy, lovely mutts but with no standard to breed to or even traceable genetics, I could end up with anything.

Standard is important, not just colour but weight, height, shape of skull, feet, gait etc. Where do we draw the line? I wouldn't ask a pug to retrieve in icy water, little guy isn't generally built for it.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Hi Big D

I don't know much about why some colours are and are not in the standard for flat coat retrievers.

I do know there are problems in some other breeds with certain colours being associated with health problems like blue in SBT - is linked to skin problems, and merle + merle in some breeds increases the chance of blind and/or deaf puppies.

So sometimes colour is important and sometimes it isn't when it comes to the health of individual dogs and sometimes of the breed.

[Kirislin]

I wish colour was immaterial, but in most breeds it's not. We'd have a larger gene pool then. The only time I agree with it being excluded is if it causes health problems, such as deafness etc. It's my own opinion though.

[Dame Aussie]

I wish colour was immaterial, but in most breeds it's not. We'd have a larger gene pool then. The only time I agree with it being excluded is if it causes health problems, such as deafness etc. It's my own opinion though.

I agree here. Unless there is a health issue associated with the colour I think it should be irrelevant.

[RuralPug]

Good breeders know that colour (always excepting dangerous dilutes etc.) is really just the frosting on the cake after soundness, health, temperament and type.

Good breeders also know that there is usually a sound historial reason in a breed for exclusions of colour and marking - sometimes it was just due to the job required, for instance you don't really want a spaniel or setter or riding hound with too much of a camouflage coat for it might be accidentally shot by a hunter, you might not want a herding breed that you cannot find among the stock etc. etc.

Sometimes a particular colour was believed to have been linked genetically with other traits undesirable to those developing the breed (which may be the reasoning behind the flat coat standard colour exclusions.)

Thus when a mating potentially combines excellent qualities in soundness, health, temperament and type but may produce a mismark or unwanted colour a good breeder will most likely proceed with fingers crossed that they get some specimens that are standard for colour and/or markings and will be prepared to find pet homes for any that don't. They would rarely, if ever, breed directly from a disallowed colour or mismark though.

Edited May 8, 2015 by RuralPug

[JulesP]

This is causing major angst in border collies as a heap of colours have been excluded for no good reason. Most of the exclusions are just really dopey as you can have a black tri but not a chocolate tri but you can have a chocolate dog. It makes zero genetic sense and is an embarrassment.

Not to mention my gorgy sable border collie that is excluded.

You can put them on the limit register.

If there is no health reason to exclude a colour then I don't think they should be excluded. But weirdly blue is allowed and that does have a health issue.

[YOLO]

I think the first thing that jumps out at me here is health, temperament first and standard last. To be honest, if we cross standard out we open ourselves up to dogs who are not fit to work, which is what the flat coat is bred for. I have had many healthy, lovely mutts but with no standard to breed to or even traceable genetics, I could end up with anything.

Standard is important, not just colour but weight, height, shape of skull, feet, gait etc. Where do we draw the line? I wouldn't ask a pug to retrieve in icy water, little guy isn't generally built for it.

But I am talking specifically about colour. I am all for standard, if I buy a FC puppy I want it to be a Flat-Coat, not a bitza.

But, particularly with less populous breeds, I think we are doing the wrong thing in further narrowing the gene pool by excluding dogs that may be perfectly healthy, and meet the standard in every other way, except for colouration.

The additional problem is because there is such a strong link between breeding & showing. Most breeders want to show, and then want to breed from their champions.

Most of the problems we are now trying to breed out, have come about in part because of shrinking gene pools. We have no choice but to shrink them further to remove heredity health issues, and should therefore lessen the damage by simply ignoring colour. (Unless it is a clear genetic abnormality.)

Its annoying if you consider that say a GSP, can be be any combination of black & white, or brown & white, including solid, spotted, or ticked.

The particular problem with Flatties is that whilst Liver is accepted, they are generally disliked for breeding. Breeding liver on liver tends to produce pale (non standard) eyes, and breeding with black tends to produce red flashes for a few generations. Then, whilst a black with red flashes would probably be ok to breed from (with a "full" black to dilute the red) they are unlikely to fare well in the ring and so unlikely to get Champion status, and hence unlikely to be bred.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Big D

[Steph M]

But if that part.of the standard changes, where do you draw the line? Its a bit of a minefield.

[LisaCC]

I tend to agree, if the colour is able to be produced naturally within the breed, and the colour has no associated health problems. Especially for rarer breeds where you have a diminished gene pool already.

[Salukifan]

Sometimes colour preferences and disqualifications relate to function.

Perhaps a yellow Flatcoat is excluded because it is too "Golden Retriever" (noting that GRs were used to save the breed) or perhaps a yellow dog is simply too hard to see in certain hunting territory in the UK. Alternately, perhaps the colour is associated with other genetic faults and therefore frowned upon.

I don't know the answer but sometimes there is a reason for the disqualification beyond a cosmetic one.

[Steph M]

This is an interesting read.

https://www.kusa.co.za/index.php/kusa-schemes/canine-health-schemes/512-yellow-flatcoated-retrievers

[Salukifan]

Lastly, despite what we think we know about the genetics, it is still possible for Flatties to have golden pups. I have seen it more often in very large litters, but I guess that would just be a function of the numerical odds being small. Why should such a dog be excluded, just because of the colour of their coat?

The short and rather obvious answer, even though it is intellectually unsatisfying, is "because the standard says so".

We can speculate all we want on the "why's" but the standard is what is is, even if, as individuals we don't understand the why's of it.

The other point that is often made (and which I agree with) is "if you aren't going to respect and breed within the standard, why have one at all"?

If it's in, it's in. If it's out, it's out. If we were all to ignore the aspects of breed standards we didn't individually agree with, there wouldn't BE breeds. Or at least there wouldn't be for long. What would be next? Size? Coat type? Temperament?

Colour is often linked to other genes. There may be old wisdom in the exclusion. Who knows?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[RuralPug]

This is an interesting read.

https://www.kusa.co....ated-retrievers

Yes it is and I really think the conclusive paragraph says it all:

"Surely, as people who love this beautiful breed we should accept the Standard as it was established so many years ago, and respect those who worked hard to maintain it? We need to be responsible with this legacy and with the careful mentoring that has come down through the years. In South Africa we owe it to the first people who imported the Flatcoat from the UK in the 1960s to maintain the correct standard. Anything less is indeed hazardous to the future of the breed."

[mita]

In Tibetan Spaniels all colours and mixture of colours are permissible. I guess that's how the breed developed with no particular colours selected because of any specific function. Has the effect of making each tibbie somewhat unique in colour presentation. BTW I'm not arguing the same ought apply to all other breeds ... which have different histories & functions.

A line-up pictured on the TSAV calendar gives some idea of colour variety (click enlarge):

[Christina]

I know if parti coloured poodles were allowed I would have them. Some are so pretty & it is a natural occurence in the breed.

If colour is only cosmetic for the breed, not a health risk & occurs naturally without any out crosses then I think that the colour should be permitted.

[Steve]

In other countries and registries they deal with it by allowing the colours which are not in the standard to be used for breeding but not showing and we used to do that here as well. The limited register system wont allow partipoodles to go on main here so they cant be bred with but in other countries it is bred with just cant be shown.

[Kirislin]

I was surprised to read once that with Great Danes many of the colours are kept separate, so effectively they're almost different breeds that just have a similar shape. Just my opinion, I'm sure I'll get lots of disagreement. I wish they were all allowed to be mixed, except if it causes more health problems such as the merle gene.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Kirislin

[Airedaler]

If you allow one deviation from the standard i.e. colour, how long would it be before someone else wants another feature of the standard ignored i.e. ear set or carriage, either of which have no impact on the conformation or health of the dog or for example coat texture again in this day and age probably given the fact that most of any breed are pets this would have no impact. When you go along this line until everyone has allowed what they want you no longer have the breed as it is described in the standard. The standard thus IMO becomes lowered. We should not be even contemplating lowering standards but sadly too often in this day and age the attitude is if I don't like it, it should be changed.

[Sandra777]

Just using the much-debated Staffordshire Bull Terrier standard as an example.

The SBT standard allows red, fawn, black, blue or white or any ONE of these colours with white. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brindle with white. Black and tan or liver coloured undesireable (in the USA B&T & Liver are DQ)

There is no definition of the difference between red and fawn. Genetically there probably is very little difference, (if there is a difference it probably relates to random modifiers rather than a specific gene).

Black does not occur genetically.

Blue is permitted but since SBT's are not genetically black, they cannot be gentically blue either (blue & black as in Great Danes)

Only problem is the standard is fairly blunt and says Nose: Black. Genetically impossible in a blue (or blue brindle)

Any ONE of these colours with white - where does this leave the red and white with a black mask? Black masks are very common in some lines and are quite desirable. Are they permitted?

Black and tan is fine, except for the fact that you can also get black-with-brindle-markings. Are these acceptable? According to the standard they must be since black & tan is undesirable but black & brindle isn't mentioned - or does this come in as "any shade of brindle" (personally I say no, but that could be an argument used)

Liver coloured is undesireable. What does this actually mean - Liver can turn up as 'liver brindle' where the dog is actually a liver (has a brown nose) but is brindled so is this "any shade of brindle" then you can get very liver-looking dogs with a black nose so genetically they're not liver but they look like they are.

And just to rub salt in the wound, what difference does it make to a fighting dog what colour it is? Colour has absolutely no bearing on the function of a fighting dog, unlike other examples given (not seeing gundogs in long cover, white flag on the end of a Beagle's tail etc etc)

The original breed standard didn't even mention blue, this was added 15 years later. Why was blue put in but the other dilute, liver, not? Did someone with blues have more political backing than someone with black & tans?

Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason for a specific point in a standard, but it is tradition. Personally I don't have a problem with tradition, but it should be updated to make sense now we know more about the genetic side of things.

I wouldn't want to see black Samoyeds or brindle Rottweilers become accepted, but things like a standard which allows blue demanding a black nose needs to be addressed.