Colour Not To Standard?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

HW said "call me lazy" because she prefers to stick to the standard. I think it is the other way round. The standards are there, describing the breed to a T. The challenge is to produce a dog that meets the standard and still does all of the things that you think the breed should be able to do. These people pointing at examples of breeds that can't do what they are bred for are excluding those who score highly both in the confirmation ring AND in performance trials that measure abilty in herding, hunting, coursing etc.etc. It is NOT lazy people that have bred those dogs, it is people who have risen to the challenge.

Exactly. I recall a very long time ago when I was pretty green I naively posed the question on a breed list about whether performance or conformation should be prioritised. The answer thundered back from someone who years later I eventually imported two dogs from that you needed to have BOTH. This woman has a string of generations of dual champion dogs in conformation and performance, including some difficult titles to get in both. My last import of semen is from another breeder who also excels at both conformation and performance. And I mean excels, top dog in the breed in the US for 4 years running in performance plus a show champion.

It's hard work, requires stubbornness as well as some resources but the whole "either/or" thing is crap - embrace the power of "and". So many of the problems that people seek to solve by breaking the rules can be better solved by just having higher standards.

[espinay2]

1432720559[/url]' post='6696702']

1432716039[/url]' post='6696653']

HW said "call me lazy" because she prefers to stick to the standard. I think it is the other way round. The standards are there, describing the breed to a T. The challenge is to produce a dog that meets the standard and still does all of the things that you think the breed should be able to do. These people pointing at examples of breeds that can't do what they are bred for are excluding those who score highly both in the confirmation ring AND in performance trials that measure abilty in herding, hunting, coursing etc.etc. It is NOT lazy people that have bred those dogs, it is people who have risen to the challenge.

It's hard work, requires stubbornness as well as some resources but the whole "either/or" thing is crap - embrace the power of "and". So many of the problems that people seek to solve by breaking the rules can be better solved by just having higher standards.

Exactly this. Thank you very much.

[miss whippy]

Miss Whippy:

The thing you have been suggesting should not happen, that standards be questioned, because people should accept the standard, as it was the intention of the original creators.

Nope, never said that. l said that they should be adhered to unless the "why" of a change can be answered.

I said you didn't get to pick and choose what parts of the standard mattered. I also said that standards could be changed. But with a process, not on the gut instinct of people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it.

the why has been stated, that it could improve the genetic diversity/health of a breed.

The why the colour is not there, may never be answered in some instances, but in each case it is only being proposed if it is believed not to be detrimental to health.

You get to question the logic in any part of the standard. If we did not question, we would still think the world was flat.

Who was suggesting that due process would not be followed in order to effect said changes?

I hope the other people who felt reason to question the sense of excluding colours which dont make genetic sense in a breed are not offended by being tarred with the brush of 'people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it' I don't think that at all.

[Steve]

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.

...and sometimes it is just historical - like Border Collies. The fact that some colours are recognised forces people to register the dogs with the wrong colour. This can have major helath implications down the line (eg merle in the line).

Not an issue these days you can DNA for colour and you know straight away whether there is a merle in there or not

[Steve]

Miss Whippy:

The thing you have been suggesting should not happen, that standards be questioned, because people should accept the standard, as it was the intention of the original creators.

Nope, never said that. l said that they should be adhered to unless the "why" of a change can be answered.

I said you didn't get to pick and choose what parts of the standard mattered. I also said that standards could be changed. But with a process, not on the gut instinct of people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it.

the why has been stated, that it could improve the genetic diversity/health of a breed.

The why the colour is not there, may never be answered in some instances, but in each case it is only being proposed if it is believed not to be detrimental to health.

You get to question the logic in any part of the standard. If we did not question, we would still think the world was flat.

Who was suggesting that due process would not be followed in order to effect said changes?

I hope the other people who felt reason to question the sense of excluding colours which dont make genetic sense in a breed are not offended by being tarred with the brush of 'people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it' I don't think that at all.

You don't have to change the standard - simply allow colours which are not desirable or allowed in the show ring to be able to be used for breeding - just as we did prior to the limited register. In fact a breeder could still put a dog of a disqualifying colour on main register and use it to breed with they just couldnt show it until relatively recently. If there wasn't a hell of a process in place prior to any changes in a standard the whole entire show would come undone - its why there are parent clubs to protect the breeds so people with their own ideas and agendas and politics cant just change this bit or that.

[Salukifan]

the why has been stated, that it could improve the genetic diversity/health of a breed.

The why the colour is not there, may never be answered in some instances, but in each case it is only being proposed if it is believed not to be detrimental to health.

You get to question the logic in any part of the standard. If we did not question, we would still think the world was flat.

Who was suggesting that due process would not be followed in order to effect said changes?

I hope the other people who felt reason to question the sense of excluding colours which dont make genetic sense in a breed are not offended by being tarred with the brush of 'people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it' I don't think that at all.

If the cap doesn't fit, then by all means don't wear it but you were sharing space with a person who thinks that outcrossing is the solution to most issues associated with pedigree dogs. In the world of sighthounds, its a view that gets a fair work out in some circles.

[miss whippy]

I wonder if the original point of this discussion has been lost in the side tracking??

To me, the original question was something like "these particular colours are forbidden in the showring because they are excluded from the standard. Why have colours been excluded from the standard when colour doesn't affect function."

I think that has been answered from a historical point of view, plus plenty of comments have been made re cases where colour DOES affect health and/or other aspects of original function. Nevertheless, it has also been pointed out that there IS already the ability to submit reasons towards changing or adapting standards, or temporarily permitted judicious cross-breedingfor good reasons, within the existing rules. It is hard work to be able to justify a change to a standard, but it can be done and has been done.

The discussion at the moment seems to be along the lines of "standards are useless, they don't produce the dog I like" vs "standards were developed so that a breed could be identified as a distinct breed and not just a vague sort-of".

Today, in our world, standards are mainly the province of show breeders and exhibitors. I do agree that many may have been interpreted to the point of ridiculousness in some cases, but there is sometimes a swing back again if you look at breed pictures over the years. I can't quite understand why the people who are so vocal against standards even care. If you want a dog that will perform the task that you want but does not meet the standard, go ahead and breed that type and stick to performance venues rather than confirmation ones. No great drama. It happens all the time and large numbers of performance dogs are not pedigreed at all.

But some people seem to want to make changes to their breed without going to the effort of convincing the breed clubs (and through them the kennel clubs) that the standard should be changed.

HW said "call me lazy" because she prefers to stick to the standard. I think it is the other way round. The standards are there, describing the breed to a T. The challenge is to produce a dog that meets the standard and still does all of the things that you think the breed should be able to do. These people pointing at examples of breeds that can't do what they are bred for are excluding those who score highly both in the confirmation ring AND in performance trials that measure abilty in herding, hunting, coursing etc.etc. It is NOT lazy people that have bred those dogs, it is people who have risen to the challenge.

Some breed "working" lines and ignore confirmation standards. Fine. Others breed "show" lines and never make any attempt to measure their ability. That's fine too. But the really passionate breed people that I truly admire are those who strive to breed dogs that can do their job and still meet the standard.

I guess I'm saying I think that people should work within the rules. If you don't like the rules, either find another game or convince everyone else playing to change to your rules. And if you try to convince them by bluster and bullying my bet is that you'll be kicked off the ground.

Surely it not be such a 'challenge' to breed dogs that are fit for purpose and fits the standard.. isnt this what the standard was written for? I wasnt suggesting that breeding to the standard is lazy, much less that breeding a functional dog within the standard is lazy. I said that to rely on 'because it is in the standard' as a reason to continue to do something without question was.

If anyone feels that I have bullied them, I apologise now, wholeheartedly.

It is never my intent do so. I simply aim to challenge the engrained thinking and encourage people to question the reasons for their beliefs.

[Dame Aussie]

I haven't seen any bullying. Just differences of opinion, which is what a forum is for.

[miss whippy]

the why has been stated, that it could improve the genetic diversity/health of a breed.

The why the colour is not there, may never be answered in some instances, but in each case it is only being proposed if it is believed not to be detrimental to health.

You get to question the logic in any part of the standard. If we did not question, we would still think the world was flat.

Who was suggesting that due process would not be followed in order to effect said changes?

I hope the other people who felt reason to question the sense of excluding colours which dont make genetic sense in a breed are not offended by being tarred with the brush of 'people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it' I don't think that at all.

If the cap doesn't fit, then by all means don't wear it but you were sharing space with a person who thinks that outcrossing is the solution to most issues associated with pedigree dogs. In the world of sighthounds, its a view that gets a fair work out in some circles.

Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs.

I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

[Salukifan]

Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs.

I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix?

[miss whippy]

also what I don't get is the need for people to see standards as rules and that by learning new things and maybe taking them into account by suggesting changing them is 'breaking the rules'.

[Salukifan]

also what I don't get is the need for people to see standards as rules and that by learning new things and maybe taking them into account by suggesting changing them is 'breaking the rules'.

Given that I've got a bitch in whelp now and pups on the way, I'm not sure how I can view the existing standard as anything else.

Theoretically a broader view is possible but as a person who's poured over that standard and who's going to be selecting my next generation breeding dog based on it, I am living in the now. I personally don't have any issue with the current standard and I'm trying to stay within it. I don't have the luxury of selecting dogs based on changes that might never happen.

So dogs that I think will be too big, that don't conform as closely as possible to the desired standard won't get to stay.... for me the Standard as it is now is what I have to work to.

[miss whippy]

Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs.

I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix?

Genetic diversity.

The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken.

There are issues which are becoming problematic in the breed, they are already there, and there are other genes still there to be able to breed away from them. However doing so requires full disclosure on health and diseases, and a database of such, as well as an adjustment to the popularly held beliefs on inbreeding, linebreeding and popular sires. In whippets it may still be possible to avoid for some time the negative effects of increased inbreeding without going outside the breed.

There will come a time in all purebred breeds where the only place to turn is to introduce new blood from outside the breed to fix a problem, one which cannot be fixed from within, and by that time there are probably many problems and the breed is in a dire state, as many rarer breeds or breeds that have gone through a bottleneck are at this point. Why wait until it's so hard, why not get in before things fall apart?

But as I said above, any sort of mending or prevention must involve a re-evalutation of the way we breed purebred dogs, and the way we share information about them. At the moment it is all about competition, it needs to become about collaboration.

[Salukifan]

Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs.

I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix?

Genetic diversity.

The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken.

Well thanks all the same but if you can achieve a COI of less than 1% with a mating within a breed, I'm not sure what outcrossing for the sake of it brings to the party.

Lets just agree to disagree on that.

I think there is plenty of collaboration amongst breeders. I have pups placed with breeders and their parents haven't been born yet LOL

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs.

I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix?

Genetic diversity.

The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken.

Well thanks all the same but if you can achieve a COI of less than 1% with a mating within a breed, I'm not sure what outcrossing for the sake of it brings to the party.

Lets just agree to disagree on that.

how many generations did you calculate that on?

Yes, it is entirely possible to find fairly unrelated dogs still in the whippet breed. This is probably why they are still reasonably healthy. I commend you for your consideration of the low inbreeding coefficient of your litter as a priority. But it will get harder. Especially with some of your peers repeatedly perpetuating the heavy line-breeding and the use of popular sires. It is just a matter of time.

I agree to disagree, I'll leave you alone :)

[Salukifan]

Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs.

I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix?

Genetic diversity.

The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken.

Well thanks all the same but if you can achieve a COI of less than 1% with a mating within a breed, I'm not sure what outcrossing for the sake of it brings to the party.

Lets just agree to disagree on that.

how many generations did you calculate that on?

Yes, it is entirely possible to find fairly unrelated dogs still in the whippet breed. This is probably why they are still reasonably healthy. I commend you for your consideration of the low inbreeding coefficient of your litter as a priority. But it will get harder. Especially with some of your peers repeatedly perpetuating the heavy line-breeding and the use of popular sires. It is just a matter of time.

I agree to disagree, I'll leave you alone :)

Seven. Low COI is desirable but not my priority. Type and temperament come first.

Sometimes sires are popular for a reason. Some of those reasons include soundness and prepotency. It's not all about the ribbons.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

:)

[OutOfSightHound]

I wonder if the original point of this discussion has been lost in the side tracking??

To me, the original question was something like "these particular colours are forbidden in the showring because they are excluded from the standard. Why have colours been excluded from the standard when colour doesn't affect function."

I think that has been answered from a historical point of view, plus plenty of comments have been made re cases where colour DOES affect health and/or other aspects of original function. Nevertheless, it has also been pointed out that there IS already the ability to submit reasons towards changing or adapting standards, or temporarily permitted judicious cross-breedingfor good reasons, within the existing rules. It is hard work to be able to justify a change to a standard, but it can be done and has been done.

The discussion at the moment seems to be along the lines of "standards are useless, they don't produce the dog I like" vs "standards were developed so that a breed could be identified as a distinct breed and not just a vague sort-of".

Today, in our world, standards are mainly the province of show breeders and exhibitors. I do agree that many may have been interpreted to the point of ridiculousness in some cases, but there is sometimes a swing back again if you look at breed pictures over the years. I can't quite understand why the people who are so vocal against standards even care. If you want a dog that will perform the task that you want but does not meet the standard, go ahead and breed that type and stick to performance venues rather than confirmation ones. No great drama. It happens all the time and large numbers of performance dogs are not pedigreed at all.

But some people seem to want to make changes to their breed without going to the effort of convincing the breed clubs (and through them the kennel clubs) that the standard should be changed.

HW said "call me lazy" because she prefers to stick to the standard. I think it is the other way round. The standards are there, describing the breed to a T. The challenge is to produce a dog that meets the standard and still does all of the things that you think the breed should be able to do. These people pointing at examples of breeds that can't do what they are bred for are excluding those who score highly both in the confirmation ring AND in performance trials that measure abilty in herding, hunting, coursing etc.etc. It is NOT lazy people that have bred those dogs, it is people who have risen to the challenge.

Some breed "working" lines and ignore confirmation standards. Fine. Others breed "show" lines and never make any attempt to measure their ability. That's fine too. But the really passionate breed people that I truly admire are those who strive to breed dogs that can do their job and still meet the standard.

I guess I'm saying I think that people should work within the rules. If you don't like the rules, either find another game or convince everyone else playing to change to your rules. And if you try to convince them by bluster and bullying my bet is that you'll be kicked off the ground.

Koolie club of Australia doesn't even have a standard and refuses to write one, yet they are on the ANKC sporting register. Can't mistake a Koolie when you meet one though. So you dont even need a standard to have a breed

[OutOfSightHound]

also what I don't get is the need for people to see standards as rules and that by learning new things and maybe taking them into account by suggesting changing them is 'breaking the rules'.

Given that I've got a bitch in whelp now and pups on the way, I'm not sure how I can view the existing standard as anything else.

Theoretically a broader view is possible but as a person who's poured over that standard and who's going to be selecting my next generation breeding dog based on it, I am living in the now. I personally don't have any issue with the current standard and I'm trying to stay within it. I don't have the luxury of selecting dogs based on changes that might never happen.

So dogs that I think will be too big, that don't conform as closely as possible to the desired standard won't get to stay.... for me the Standard as it is now is what I have to work to.

Koolies are on the ANKC sporting register and don't even have a standard. But you know a Koolie when you meet one. So you dont even need a standard to have a breed.

[Salukifan]

Koolies are on the ANKC sporting register and don't even have a standard. But you know a Koolie when you meet one. So you dont even need a standard to have a breed.

No, but they have "fundamentals" and say its too early for a standard yet. From the Australian Koolie website:

We do not tell people how to breed their dogs, we give our members credit for knowing what they want to achieve to suit their own situation, but we are here to offer suggestions or assistance if inexperienced or experienced breeders feel they need some advice or ideas. For this reason we have not laid down a 'breed standard' at this time as we accept that the different styles of Koolies suit the many and varied jobs they undertake. We also feel that we need to give the breed time to evolve a little before trying to mould the physical attributes to a 'standard'. It is however necessary for breeders to aim to improve their lines from each breeding. The comittment and expense of breeding deserves to bring a positive outcome. To assist breeders and purchasers to achieve their goals we have adopted a guide call the "The Koolie Fundamentals" which descibes clearly the points of a structurally sound working Koolie.

That's hardly winging it.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets