Colour Not To Standard?

[Kirislin]

aaah to have a time machine and travel forwards 50 or 100 years to see how some breeds are going.

[miss whippy]

aaah to have a time machine and travel forwards 50 or 100 years to see how some breeds are going.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing

Edited May 28, 2015 by miss whippy

[Salukifan]

aaah to have a time machine and travel forwards 50 or 100 years to see how some breeds are going.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[miss whippy]

aaah to have a time machine and travel forwards 50 or 100 years to see how some breeds are going.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

haha, no probs. When you look at how exaggerated and deformed some breeds have become in 100 years, coupled with the a common thread among the fancy of reluctance or refusal to see that there is anything wrong, it doesn't instil a lot of confidence

[Salukifan]

aaah to have a time machine and travel forwards 50 or 100 years to see how some breeds are going.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

haha, no probs. When you look at how exaggerated and deformed some breeds have become in 100 years, coupled with the a common thread among the fancy of reluctance or refusal to see that there is anything wrong, it doesn't instil a lot of confidence

Well despite my apparent lack of qualificatiion (in your eyes) to breed, I am trying to take my breed forward. My bad. Armchair criticism of my efforts must be borne because I have no choice. I am committed enough to wear it but I don't have to enjoy the opinions of people who think they know better. So be it.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

aaah to have a time machine and travel forwards 50 or 100 years to see how some breeds are going.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

haha, no probs. When you look at how exaggerated and deformed some breeds have become in 100 years, coupled with the a common thread among the fancy of reluctance or refusal to see that there is anything wrong, it doesn't instil a lot of confidence

Well despite my apparent lack of qualificatiion (in your eyes) to breed, I am trying to take my breed forward. My bad. Armchair criticism of my efforts must be borne because I have no choice. I am committed enough to wear it but I don't have to enjoy the opinions of people who think they know better. So be it.

It's never been personal criticism. I just wanted to see if I could open your eyes to some new ideas seeing you were showing such a staunch support of the status quo. I certainly don't hate or feel any malice toward you anyone who does what they think is right, especially when they are convinced that it is the best for the breed. Because we don't share the same opinion on certain matters, I will continue to voice mine in the interests of a level and balanced debate and exchange of knowledge, but certainly don't take it personally. I may have addressed you particularly often, but only because you continued the offer debate.

I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it.

But you can't win them all.

[Steph M]

I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it.

But you can't win them all.

How passive aggressive of you. :laugh:

[Salukifan]

I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it.

But you can't win them all.

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it.

But you can't win them all.

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject?

I didn't at any stage rubbish your efforts.

Practical experience in dog breeding is not required to understand population genetics.

[JRG]

I find this discussion very interesting because for almost 40 years I have been breeding a breed in which show and field specimens look entirely different. It would be about 120 years since the "split" began and since that time the twain hardly ever meet because they have moved so far apart.

If you were to look at pictures of the dogs of 100 years ago, they look very much like the working dogs of today, but the fashion of long hair, exaggerated features etc have produced a different animal. In temperament and working ability, they are poles apart. This is understandable because what the show breeder wants is not what I want and visa versa so the aims of breeders of the two types are different. BUT they are all registered as the same breed all over the world and the standard is the same and is so broad that it fits all!

My dogs would be laughed out of the show ring and the show dog has no place in the working scene. We can rant and rave all we like, but nothing is about to change.

[Salukifan]

I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it.

But you can't win them all.

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject?

I didn't at any stage rubbish your efforts.

Practical experience in dog breeding is not required to understand population genetics.

And I will not argue that an understanding (even basic) of genetics isn't useful for a breeder.

But it's not enough and I argue that "genetic diversity" is NOT the holy grail that should take precedence over all other breeding goals. You can breed very poor dogs that have very low COIs. At some point you have to evaluate and select breeding stock based on their soundness, type and temperament.

Enter the use of breed standards.

Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it.

But you can't win them all.

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject?

I didn't at any stage rubbish your efforts.

Practical experience in dog breeding is not required to understand population genetics.

And I will not argue that an understanding (even basic) of genetics isn't useful for a breeder.

But it's not enough and I argue that "genetic diversity" is NOT the holy grail that should take precedence over all other breeding goals. You can breed very poor dogs that have very low COIs. At some point you have to evaluate and select breeding stock based on their soundness, type and temperament.

Enter the use of breed standards.

Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree.

I agree with that. I think we've both had a pretty reasonable attempt at swaying the others opinion, so it's no good going over and over it, so yes, agree to disagree. :)

[_PL_]

This is really interesting.

So if you outcross, does that mean you just run the risk of doubling up on problems you're trying to get rid of? Like the ooodly dogs. Or is it all based on genetics rater than the condition of the dog itself?

If both breeds have genes for a condition (such as PRA), you'll end up with it in the outcross. This is what the oodle farmers don't tell folk.

If one breed has a condition, it may introduce it into a gene pool where it was unknown. CEA and MDR1 in Silken Windhounds is an example. Those two conditions are UNKNOWN in older sighthound breeds.

However if the breed does not suffer from the condition and the outcross is carefully done, when backcrossed with unaffllicted individuals, you stand a chance of lowering the incidence in a breed.

The LUA Dalmation outcross project is an example. As can be discerned from the article, it is not without controversy. I note that the breed used had physical characteristics in common with Dallies and genetic testing was used to verify results. It wasn't a case of "I'll put my X over my Y because I think I might get a handy dog from it".

Hmmmm, very very interesting. Would this be why there are merle pomeranians now ... from outcrossing? I had an opps moment by telling my dear pom showing friend that I thought they were cute. :laugh:

edit: I don't mean the poms are dear. That reads oddly sorry.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Powerlegs

[Salukifan]

Hmmmm, very very interesting. Would this be why there are merle pomeranians now ... from outcrossing? I had an opps moment by telling my dear pom showing friend that I thought they were cute. :laugh:

edit: I don't mean the poms are dear. That reads oddly sorry.

And brindle and white Pugs, and a few other new colours cropping up in other breeds.

Spontaneous genetic mutations? My armpit they are.

[Kirislin]

Hmmmm, very very interesting. Would this be why there are merle pomeranians now ... from outcrossing? I had an opps moment by telling my dear pom showing friend that I thought they were cute. :laugh:

edit: I don't mean the poms are dear. That reads oddly sorry.

And brindle and white Pugs, and a few other new colours cropping up in other breeds.

Spontaneous genetic mutations? My armpit they are.

are the new colours popping up registered as pedigrees?

[pepe001]

Sorry to change the mood of the thread - but I googled merle pom. If different colours don't enrage you - do it. They are amazing looking dogs. I assume a Shetland sheepdog cross somewhere there. But I do find any merle dog amazing - google merle dog. There are photos of merle German Shepherd as well and a huge controversy about it as old pictures (very old pictures) of founding dogs appear to be merle. Talking about German Shepherds - google Panda German Shepherd. Proven to be pure German Shepherds by genetic testing and considered to be a spontaneous mutation.

[_PL_]

Sorry to change the mood of the thread - but I googled merle pom. If different colours don't enrage you - do it. They are amazing looking dogs. I assume a Shetland sheepdog cross somewhere there. But I do find any merle dog amazing - google merle dog. There are photos of merle German Shepherd as well and a huge controversy about it as old pictures (very old pictures) of founding dogs appear to be merle. Talking about German Shepherds - google Panda German Shepherd. Proven to be pure German Shepherds by genetic testing and considered to be a spontaneous mutation.

From what I can gather, you don't just magically get merles sprinkled with fairy dust :laugh: appearing in breeds where there was never gene for it before. And it's a problematic gene that needs a bit of work and keeping an eye on it like Aussie Shepherd breeders do. I could be wrong there.

Regardless... it's very sellable because it looks exotic. You wouldn't need to be a registered breeder sticking to the breed standard, you just set yourself up as a breeder people can get their special, unique looking dogs from.

[BJean]

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.

Yes the new FCI Azawakhs breed standard has dramatic changes to the amount of white allowed on a dog.

As I understand, the FCI changes prevent Azawakh from country of origin being accepted through the FCI grading system ie where dogs from country of origin without pedigree undergo judge appraisal - and those which meet the standard can be entered in the stud books. So Azawakhs with a lot of white will no longer be accepted. ie white stockings, chest etc

Edited May 31, 2015 by lilli

[BJean]

The limited register is the worst thing that could have happened to our breeds and is responsible for each year seeing smaller and smaller gene pools.

But can't dogs be updated at any time?

My understanding in Vic is that a dog can be upgraded from Ltd to Main at any age.

That said, I tend to put more on main reg in co-own these days.

[BJean]

I am quite aware of how different purebred dog breeding is from the ideal of natural selection and randomised breeding. It is a very different animal.

If you think that closing a genepool and consistently artificially select for various traits with no new blood for generation after generation and using only a small percentage of the population to further their genes each time is a better way than mother nature figured out, maybe you need to have another look at population genetics.

population genetics facebook course seem to base a lot of the theory on plants. And not on mammals.

Purebreeding as we know it in dogs is a closed system. You cannot get back what you have lost, and there is no way of predicting which vital bits that you cant see when you select for or against certain traits are dragged along behind the scenes and just start going missing, or popping up 'unexpectedly' The closer the genepool is when you need to go 'fix' some problem, the less likelihood you have of still having enough diversity there to be able to avoid it..

Yes and no. UK Kennel club allows dogs with no pedigree to be added on to the register and so do some FCI members for some breeds.

So hypothetically one could breed 1 x breed 2, and in two or three gens (depending on the colour/cross) get the non pedigree outcross close enough to pass the appraisal system.