Colour Not To Standard?

[Steve]

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.

Sorry I dont agree with this - allowing someone to breed with a colour that isn't recognised in the show ring doesn't automatically open a door for more changes and the breeds are protected from someone wanting to change something and it being able to happen. Its not an insistence that the standard should be changed at all - its just that some dogs who have everything else going for them but colour should be able to be used for breeding as it was prior to the introduction to limited register and more recent regs. The standards stay the same - and those which dont comply with the standard [ colour ] cant be shown - its just that you allow dogs which dont fit the standard for colour to be used for breeding just as it is in most other countries.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Steve

[Salukifan]

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.

Sorry I dont agree with this - allowing someone to breed with a colour that isn't recognised in the show ring doesn't automatically open a door for more changes and the breeds are protected from someone wanting to change something and it being able to happen. Its not an insistence that the standard should be changed at all - its just that some dogs who have everything else going for them but colour should be able to be used for breeding as it was prior to the introduction to limited register and more recent regs. The standards stay the same - and those which dont comply with the standard [ colour ] cant be shown - its just that you allow dogs which dont fit the standard for colour to be used for breeding just as it is in most other countries.

Unless, of course, the colour is disqualified for something other than a cosmetic reason.

[Steve]

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.

Sorry I dont agree with this - allowing someone to breed with a colour that isn't recognised in the show ring doesn't automatically open a door for more changes and the breeds are protected from someone wanting to change something and it being able to happen. Its not an insistence that the standard should be changed at all - its just that some dogs who have everything else going for them but colour should be able to be used for breeding as it was prior to the introduction to limited register and more recent regs. The standards stay the same - and those which dont comply with the standard [ colour ] cant be shown - its just that you allow dogs which dont fit the standard for colour to be used for breeding just as it is in most other countries.

Unless, of course, the colour is disqualified for something other than a cosmetic reason.

Yes agree - except. White boxers are born and some of them are litter picks except for the colour if two flashy boxers are bred together. You certainly don't want a situation where a white is mated to a white or a flashy but if you allow people to mate white to plain - you never get a white. If they banned flashy to flashy no white pup would ever be bred. No one wants to see merle to merle but there are DNA tests now to identify the carriers so its easily avoided.

Colours shouldn't be automatically eliminated via the limited register [or as in the case of boxers the whites cant even have limited rego] in the year 2015 with the availability of science in most cases. Each should be considered and taken on a case by case basis after looking at the variables for each one.

Side note - Years ago some boxer breeders would register their white with a dash of red boxers as red and white and use them for mating to a plain boxer and that ensures every pup born was a flashy no health issues in that and it made lots of very nice champions but not able to be done according to the rules.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Steve

[raineth]

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?

Aren't the words "liver" and "chocolate" just two different words to describe the same colour?

For instance in GSPs brown is referred to as Liver and with Labs brown is referred to as chocolate, but ultimately they are just two different names to refer to dark brown?

[Salukifan]

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.

Many breed standards specify temperament.

What good is an LGD that is extremely dog social? Similarly what good is a protective and aloof gun dog? (although there is a gun dog that is expected to guard)

I think a solid understanding of the "why's" of a breed standard should inform anyone embarking on the roller coaster of purebred dog breeding.

Colour is immaterial for Whippets. The breed standard says so. But seemingly minor cosmetic issues like foot shape, top line, depth of chest etc all have a WHY. We are lucky to have some extremely wonderful books that spell out the whys for us. Is there a Flatcoat bible?

Edited May 9, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Kavik]

The Kelpie standard for colour is interesting too.

Black, black and tan, red, red and tan, fawn, chocolate, and smoke blue.

Genetically, the red and chocolate referred to in Kelpies is the same.

Doesn't mention many colours which are historically associated with the breed and allowed in Working Kelpies such as blue and tan, fawn and tan, strange when it allows fawn and blue? And also cream which occurs in working lines as well.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Kavik

[Salukifan]

The thing with colour is to understand the genetics of it first.

One article I've just browsed says the colours in FCs are as for Labrador Retrievers. That suggests your 'chocolate' Flatcoat is actually "liver".

ETA: According to this explanation as I understand it you have liver Flatcoats.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[melzawelza]

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.

Absolutely. Many breeds are in danger genetically due to closed gene pools and silly DQs. Allowing colours that aren't associated with health problems would go some way to helping.

[WreckitWhippet]

When "colour" becomes irrelevant to some breeders, what's next ? It starts the slippery slope to "generic" dog.

[LisaCC]

I don't think it's about making colours irrelevant, it's a bit different to taking something like the relatively rare mismarks of say... brindle labs and saying that should be accepted.

Someone mentioned border collies already, I think some of their colours are allowed in other kennel clubs but not here? Why is that?

[Kirislin]

When "colour" becomes irrelevant to some breeders, what's next ? It starts the slippery slope to "generic" dog.

I dont think so.

[Stressmagnet]

I heard that until 'brown' labradiors became stupidly popular - rhey were called 'brown' or 'liver'. But Joe Public didn't want to say they had a 'liver' coloured dog - too icky. And 'brown' is too prosaic. Hence 'chocolate'.

I'm pretty sure Ernie doesn't care what he's called as long as it's for dinner. Sometimes I reckon he thinks his name is 'silly sausage'.

[alpha bet]

Perhaps it is more that the judges should better understand the workings of colour within a breed. If a colour may lead to potential health issues that is one thing... if it doesn't impede the working ability well that is entirely different.

How often would be see dogs who progress thru the ranks at shows who have better colour or colour patterns. Dogs are paraded into a ring... given a few moments of inspection, a run around and then decisions made... usually the first impression will place a flashy dog over others... and not to mention barely a look at the dentention.

The colour pattern can create a visual impression of structure which is not always true.... and without a thorough feel thru the coat the judge can be fooled... even with movement we see how handlers lifting the dogs to create lighter front which can hide the tendency of a dog to paddle (for example) - good handlers know how to compensate and cover their dogs faults and novice handlers may have not have trained their dog to perform as easily....but with a short run out and back and perhaps a circle around for the group this in now way is sufficient for the average all breed judge to have a true guide to the quality. Just make a snap decision and move on.....

If judging was better perhaps breeders would change their breeding practices...

Edited May 10, 2015 by alpha bet

[VizslaMomma]

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):

oh, Bliss! wall to wall Tibbies.

Imagine that in a garden party.

soz, I likes to drool

[Dame Aussie]

When "colour" becomes irrelevant to some breeders, what's next ? It starts the slippery slope to "generic" dog.

I dont think so.

Neither do I. I fail to see how allowing a certain colour with no associated health issues completely decimates an entire breed.

[Salukifan]

When "colour" becomes irrelevant to some breeders, what's next ? It starts the slippery slope to "generic" dog.

I dont think so.

Neither do I. I fail to see how allowing a certain colour with no associated health issues completely decimates an entire breed.

We are talking about colour not permitted by the breed standard. If that disqualification is considered no big deal, what else in that standard is then up for grabs? There are few health issues associated with height, with ear shape, with muzzle length, with foot shape. Shall those be OK too? This is what Wreckit is talking about when she mentions the slippery slope.

A breed standard is a template for breeding. Most dedicated breeders regard it as what to aim for, not what to dismiss because it doesn't suit them when they've produced pups outside it. You don't get to pick and choose what's important based on what you're capable of producing. You strive to attain the breed standard, not to view it as an inconvenience.

Lets not even discuss the "emergence" of breed colours hitherto unknown in and genetically impossible in breeds. White pugs, brindle pugs, black and tan French Bulldogs. Those OK too? It's just colour.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[WreckitWhippet]

Awesome, so what's next ?

A Dalmatian without spots

Coloured WHW's

NSDTR without tail tips

Brindle Pugs

after all, what does colour really matter ? If you don't want to breed to the standard, then don't breed.

[LisaCC]

Ok, lets just hypothetically say with Flatties that yellows were allowed (As this thread was originally flatties). Say to keep the gene pool as open as possible.

If the genetics are the same as labradors, you could put an allowance that you must breed yellows to only Livers and Blacks that do not carry yellow. Therefore all resulting puppies would be liver or black. Yellows will still pop up when livers and blacks carrying e (yellow) come together, but you are not aiming to produce them. But if they pop up, and they happen to have great temperament, and conformation, and retrieving ability and/or whatever else that breeder is looking for, at least the chance of using that dog and carrying on those traits is there?

I don't see how the above situation would be allowing for the decimation of breeds to mutts.

[Kirislin]

Many of the standards were written before colour was really understood. For example Staffordshire terriers dont have solid black, as far as I know they're all brindle, but they still have classes for blacks.

Until recently I believe it said blue whippets were supposed to have black noses. As dilutes, that is impossible, they might look black, but they aren't.

In their country of origin Azawakhs can be any colour, but some standards now have restrictions on the amount of white they can have. Surely limiting things like this will limit the gene pool, and for what reason?

The Italian greyhound has different colour standards for different countries.

Anyway, I dont think you need to worry, I'm sure you know it's very hard to change standards for any reason. I think the only time it might happen is if the breed is in such danger of dying out will they consider allowing fresh blood in and by then it might be too late for some breeds anyway.

[Salukifan]

Ok, lets just hypothetically say with Flatties that yellows were allowed (As this thread was originally flatties). Say to keep the gene pool as open as possible.

If the genetics are the same as labradors, you could put an allowance that you must breed yellows to only Livers and Blacks that do not carry yellow. Therefore all resulting puppies would be liver or black. Yellows will still pop up when livers and blacks carrying e (yellow) come together, but you are not aiming to produce them. But if they pop up, and they happen to have great temperament, and conformation, and retrieving ability and/or whatever else that breeder is looking for, at least the chance of using that dog and carrying on those traits is there?

I don't see how the above situation would be allowing for the decimation of breeds to mutts.

We still don't have an answer for WHY yellow is a disqualifying colour though. That is the most important question of all. You don't go mucking about with an established breed standard based on a whim before understanding PRECISELY what the change will result in. For example, is the coat the same in all three colours??

Based on the history of the breed, it may be that the FC folk wanted to keep the differentiation clear between the Flatcoat and the Golden Retriever. Maybe whilst they acknowledged the need for GR blood to increase the gene pool after WWII but, they wanted to favour the dogs that more closely resembled the 'old' upland retrievers based on the St John's dog and the Newfoundland before their decline. Certainly a black or liver dog would be far easier to see in upland country - important for a working retriever.

A breed standard isn't an opt in for bits, opt out for others kind of deal. If you want a yellow gun dog with long hair there is one available. Given the number of health issues currently experienced by that long haired yellow gun dog, maybe the original Flatcoat people were onto something.

The last thing you want is some cowboy breeding and selling a 'rare' colour in contravention of the breed standard. That seriously is the fast track to oblivion for breed type.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Haredown Whippets