Colour Not To Standard?

[Kirislin]

.

Some are purely an aesthetic preference. Dark eye dilute whippets in the US. I wonder how many perfectly healthy, beautifully conformed lighter eyed whippets have been lost because of that.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability.

That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets.

No that's not correct. I've seen US dilute dogs with quite dark eyes. They certainly do show dilutes too. Byerley Savile Row a blue brindle was exported for a couple of years and used alot over there, they loved him. and lots complained about their requirement for a dark eye.

[miss whippy]

.

Some are purely an aesthetic preference. Dark eye dilute whippets in the US. I wonder how many perfectly healthy, beautifully conformed lighter eyed whippets have been lost because of that.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability.

That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets.

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

[Salukifan]

No that's not correct. I've seen US dilute dogs with quite dark eyes. They certainly do show dilutes too. Byerley Savile Row a blue brindle was exported for a couple of years and used alot over there, they loved him. and lots complained about their requirement for a dark eye.

The AKC standard specifies eye colour as "Eyes to be dark brown to nearly black in color. " That is rare in a dilute.

[Salukifan]

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them.

For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

[Kirislin]

Yes, I know, but they've managed to get some. I've even seen dark eyed dilutes here too. My own girl Penny had lovely brown eyes and she was a dilute.

she's gone to God now.

Gorgeous Penny: dark eyed dilute (with US bloodlines in her pedigree so maybe that's why)

IMG_1990cs by kirislin, on Flickr

Penny at 12 by kirislin, on Flickr

Edited May 27, 2015 by Kirislin

[Kirislin]

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them.

For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

There's alot of US bloodlines in our whippets now, and even in the UK whippets so what they do affects ours too.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Kirislin

[Salukifan]

There's alot of US bloodlines in our whippets now, and even in the UK whippets so what they do affects ours too.

Agree. But I'll still breed to our height and colour standard.

[OutOfSightHound]

.

Some are purely an aesthetic preference. Dark eye dilute whippets in the US. I wonder how many perfectly healthy, beautifully conformed lighter eyed whippets have been lost because of that.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability.

That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets.

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

I think the Current frech FCI change of the Azawahk standard is madness and one mans spiteful response to the current influx of Country of orgin bloodlines. Something the breeed sorely needs as it was founded on two sets of half siblings. Limitation of white and even the regions Country of importation is allowed is EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED, especialy in light of recent study expeditions into the regions of west africa, and the health isssues facing the breed. Luckily the Americans saw sense and have adjusted their breed standard to reflect COO colours and state as such on their standard and even allow a wider region for COO stock to be imported from.

I honestly think unless there is a REAL health issue associated with colour it should not be excluded from breeding even if it cant be shown.

Edited May 27, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[miss whippy]

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them.

For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here.

[miss whippy]

I think the Current frech FCI change of the Azawahk standard is madness and one mans spiteful response to the current influx of Country of orgin bloodlines. Something the breeed sorely needs as it was founded on two sets of half siblings. Limitation of white and even the regions Country of importation is allowed is EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED, especialy in light of recent study expeditions into the regions of west africa, and the health isssues facing the breed. Luckily the Americans saw sense and have adjusted their breed standard to reflect COO colours and state as such on their standard and even allow a wider region for COO stock to be imported from.

good reason for standards not to be held up as unchangeable and infallible. They are not always written with all the best knowledge available, and often by people with vested interests.

Edited May 27, 2015 by miss whippy

[Salukifan]

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them.

For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here.

I don't think I've expressed any opinion on what colours should be allowed in any breed. That is a matter for breed fanciers. What I said was "stick to the standard unless it is changed".

Personally I think "colour immaterial" should remain the wording of Whippet breed standards because colour has no bearing on breed function. However, what I think as an individual is not what matters. The Americans breed some damn nice dogs - be nuts not to use American bloodlines judiciously in a breeding program.

[OutOfSightHound]

I think the Current frech FCI change of the Azawahk standard is madness and one mans spiteful response to the current influx of Country of orgin bloodlines. Something the breeed sorely needs as it was founded on two sets of half siblings. Limitation of white and even the regions Country of importation is allowed is EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED, especialy in light of recent study expeditions into the regions of west africa, and the health isssues facing the breed. Luckily the Americans saw sense and have adjusted their breed standard to reflect COO colours and state as such on their standard and even allow a wider region for COO stock to be imported from.

good reason for standards not to be held up as unchangeable and infallible. They are not always written with all the best knowledge available, and often by people with vested interests.

In most cases I think much of what created a breed standard is politics. Rarely were they created by geneticists or even people with a knowledge in animal movement or health. Before Kc's function defined a breed and I think thats what we should go back to. I love to see conformation become the side show with sport the main event. Lurcher and long dog shows as well as working terrier shows in the UK are working events with the beauty contest the side show for the day and a bit fun the serios part is testing the skill and function of the dogs.

[OutOfSightHound]

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them.

For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here.

I don't think I've expressed any opinion on what colours should be allowed in any breed. That is a matter for breed fanciers. What I said was "stick to the standard unless it is changed".

Personally I think "colour immaterial" should remain the wording of Whippet breed standards because colour has no bearing on breed function. However, what I think as an individual is not what matters. The Americans breed some damn nice dogs - be nuts not to use American bloodlines judiciously in a breeding program.

Yet that same standard forces non stadards into the limited register where they can't contribute their genes to the next "standard" genration which is what this debate is about.

[Salukifan]

In most cases I think much of what created a breed standard is politics. Rarely were they created by geneticists or even people with a knowledge in animal movement or health. Before Kc's function defined a breed and I think thats what we should go back to. I love to see conformation become the side show with sport the main event. Lurcher and long dog shows as well as working terrier shows in the UK are working events with the beauty contest the side show for the day and a bit fun the serios part is testing the skill and function of the dogs.

How do you test function in breeds where an outlet for testing is either no longer available or unlawful? I think you'll find pedigrees predate the KCs too.

I might also add that "sport" is shaping some breeds as fast as the show ring ever did.

Sporting use is also no guarantee of genetic health. ISDS Border Collies are no free from genetic health issues.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Kirislin]

I think the Current frech FCI change of the Azawahk standard is madness and one mans spiteful response to the current influx of Country of orgin bloodlines. Something the breeed sorely needs as it was founded on two sets of half siblings. Limitation of white and even the regions Country of importation is allowed is EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED, especialy in light of recent study expeditions into the regions of west africa, and the health isssues facing the breed. Luckily the Americans saw sense and have adjusted their breed standard to reflect COO colours and state as such on their standard and even allow a wider region for COO stock to be imported from.

good reason for standards not to be held up as unchangeable and infallible. They are not always written with all the best knowledge available, and often by people with vested interests.

In most cases I think much of what created a breed standard is politics. Rarely were they created by geneticists or even people with a knowledge in animal movement or health. Before Kc's function defined a breed and I think thats what we should go back to. I love to see conformation become the side show with sport the main event. Lurcher and long dog shows as well as working terrier shows in the UK are working events with the beauty contest the side show for the day and a bit fun the serios part is testing the skill and function of the dogs.

It wont happen, well, not in our lifetime anyway but if it did, I'll bet they'd still be beautifully conformed dogs because they'd have to be to hold up to what ever the physical demands of the sport were.

[Salukifan]

It wont happen, well, not in our lifetime anyway but if it did, I'll bet they'd still be beautifully conformed dogs because they'd have to be to hold up to what ever the physical demands of the sport were.

I've seen raciing greyhounds with jaws so overshot they'd never catch and hold prey. Is this what we should aspire to?

Greyhounds were not developed to run on oval tracks - so that sport takes them in a different direction from their original function too.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed?

Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them.

For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here.

I don't think I've expressed any opinion on what colours should be allowed in any breed. That is a matter for breed fanciers. What I said was "stick to the standard unless it is changed".

Personally I think "colour immaterial" should remain the wording of Whippet breed standards because colour has no bearing on breed function. However, what I think as an individual is not what matters. The Americans breed some damn nice dogs - be nuts not to use American bloodlines judiciously in a breeding program.

I was just trying to get you to tell me what you thought about it, as you were happy to suggest that the why should always be considered before a change to another standard, but didnt seem to want to comment on the american whippet, and maybe question your adherence to 'stick to the standard unless it is changed'. Who makes necessary changes if everyone is faithfully sticking to the standard? What I was trying to weed out was if the breed standard was here as it is in the US, would you see reason for changing it to say coincide with the UK one? Or would you still be saying 'do what the standard says' until someone (else) changes it?

[Salukifan]

I was just trying to get you to tell me what you thought about it, as you were happy to suggest that the why should always be considered before a change to another standard, but didnt seem to want to comment on the american whippet, and maybe question your adherence to 'stick to the standard unless it is changed'. Who makes necessary changes if everyone is faithfully sticking to the standard? What I was trying to weed out was if the breed standard was here as it is in the US, would you see reason for changing it to say coincide with the UK one? Or would you still be saying 'do what the standard says' until someone (else) changes it?

I'd be arguing that as colour has no impact on breed function, that the standard should stay as it is or return to it.

I'll also chain myself to the doors of the ANKC if they want to raise the height standard here.

But the whole point is that it there a process for changing standards and my individual opinion isn't the key issue. However as the owner of dilute Whippets, I think the American emphasis on dark eyes is short sighted.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

In most cases I think much of what created a breed standard is politics. Rarely were they created by geneticists or even people with a knowledge in animal movement or health. Before Kc's function defined a breed and I think thats what we should go back to. I love to see conformation become the side show with sport the main event. Lurcher and long dog shows as well as working terrier shows in the UK are working events with the beauty contest the side show for the day and a bit fun the serios part is testing the skill and function of the dogs.

How do you test function in breeds where an outlet for testing is either no longer available or unlawful? I think you'll find pedigrees predate the KCs too.

I might also add that "sport" is shaping some breeds as fast as the show ring ever did.

Sporting use is also no guarantee of genetic health. ISDS Border Collies are no free from genetic health issues.

I think you'll find that the notion of pure-breed as we know today didn't though.

[miss whippy]

I was just trying to get you to tell me what you thought about it, as you were happy to suggest that the why should always be considered before a change to another standard, but didnt seem to want to comment on the american whippet, and maybe question your adherence to 'stick to the standard unless it is changed'. Who makes necessary changes if everyone is faithfully sticking to the standard? What I was trying to weed out was if the breed standard was here as it is in the US, would you see reason for changing it to say coincide with the UK one? Or would you still be saying 'do what the standard says' until someone (else) changes it?

I'd be arguing that as colour has no impact on breed function, that the standard should stay as it is or return to it.

I'll also chain myself to the doors of the ANKC if they want to raise the height standard here.

But the whole point is that it there a process for changing standards and my individual opinion isn't the key issue. However as the owner of dilute Whippets, I think the American emphasis on dark eyes is short sighted.

Do you only see it as relevant if it was in the 'original' standard?