Colour Not To Standard?

[DeltaCharlie]

In Border Collies the big problem is that the ANKC standard is so restrictive that it is limiting our gene pool. Smooth coat is allowed all over the world but ANKC will only allow rough coat. At the moment 8 of the top 10 bcs in the UK are smooth coat but Australian breeders can't make use of them. Pricked ears are permitted all over the world but ANKC won't recognise them, so gene pool is limited further. Then the big one is colour. The rest of the world recognises any colour (with white not dominating) but ANKC only allows a selection of colours. A chocolate/white is acceptable and so is a blue/white but if they produce a lilac/white it can't be registered. A black/white can have tan points but not a choc/white or blue/white. A blue merle is allowed but not a choc merle.

Yes, the wheels have been in motion for a while now to have the standard corrected to match the rest of the world but it is not an easy process.

[RuralPug]

The problem isnt the standard - they are pretty much the same world wide . The problem is the limited register because dogs which dont fit the standard due to colour cant be put on the main register.

Agreed. In the past, breeders could use restricted colour dogs in their breeding program even though they could not be exhibited, and the gene pool was not automatically reduced by the limited register.

Our system assumes that if a dog or bitch does not meet the standard entirely, then it is not worthy of being considered for breeding. This might make sense in breeds where the gene pool is large, but definitely does not make sense where only small gene pools are available AND the restrictive trait neither affects health nor breed type.

There could be a case made, in some breeds, for allowing restricted colours to be bred on main register, but not shown. Application by breed clubs could be made to the ANKC for this in the same way that application can be made for inter-variety breeding etc.trait.

Re the Border Collie, it sounds as though even that although Australia is the official country of development, overseas countries allow a lot of variants that the country of development does not. There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?

[mita]

In Tibetan Spaniels all colours and mixture of colours are permissible...

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

Accepting all colours & mixtures sure hasn't led to any weakening of other conformation features in tibbies. But, again, it's a feature that's always been so. I can't comment on what might happen if the colour standards already set out were relaxed in other relevant breeds.

The variety is delightful & when someone says they've just got a tibbie ... there's no guessing about colour until you see it. Also throws up some interesting 'looks'. Lily (an Aus Ch) next door matches our torti-tabby cat perfectly in colours, like they were painted by the same artist. No wonder we tibbie fanciers drool a lot. :)

[Steve]

This is the UK Border Collie standard - only says a variety of colours permissible and white should never predominate. UK standard also allows short coats, which Australia does not.

http://www.thekennel...rd.aspx?id=5166

Yep but its still the limited register in Australia which stops you from being able to breed them. Take away the limited register or allow dogs which are not permissible according to the standard in the show ring and as long as the dog is of the same breed and parents are pure bred you could still use them to breed with.

[Steve]

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.

[Agility Dogs]

Re the Border Collie, it sounds as though even that although Australia is the official country of development, overseas countries allow a lot of variants that the country of development does not. There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?[/size]

The gap is just as wide over seas, in fact some of my friends in the US suggest it is wider as the Aust Show BC's seem to have retained more of their working working ability than in other countries.

The difference is that most other Kennel clubs will recognise legitimate ABCA/ISDS pedigrees and include them in the register. Aust won't. Legitimate colours and coats are included in the register, Australia restricts the colours/coats it will allow. So either a. we miss out on some great dogs or b. dogs are registered to fit the standard.

And that's an interesting comment about development of the BC. I always thought BC's were of Scottish descent. Perhaps it was the show standard that was developed in Australia which is why some of the true working dogs are excluded? ;)

[Christina]

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

W

The last thing you want is some cowboy breeding and selling a 'rare' colour in contravention of the breed standard.

We already have the above situation. Unregistered breeders already do this, can do this & its not illegal. With no recommended health tests, pedigree or knowledge of health problems & lineage.

The public want this. To a certain degree with some breeds where the colour occurs naturally & genetically in the breed with no associated health risks I think it may be better to allow some colours.

My knowledge is generally limited to the poodle colours so I only know that I have had many requests for parti colours & phantoms. I don't even like the phantoms but do like the parti colour.

Of course they go to back yard breeders. Its interesting that opinion is so divided on this subject.

[DeltaCharlie]

Re the Border Collie, it sounds as though even that although Australia is the official country of development, overseas countries allow a lot of variants that the country of development does not. There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?[/size]

The gap is just as wide over seas, in fact some of my friends in the US suggest it is wider as the Aust Show BC's seem to have retained more of their working working ability than in other countries.

The difference is that most other Kennel clubs will recognise legitimate ABCA/ISDS pedigrees and include them in the register. Aust won't. Legitimate colours and coats are included in the register, Australia restricts the colours/coats it will allow. So either a. we miss out on some great dogs or b. dogs are registered to fit the standard.

And that's an interesting comment about development of the BC. I always thought BC's were of Scottish descent. Perhaps it was the show standard that was developed in Australia which is why some of the true working dogs are excluded? ;)

In a nutshell, they are a UK breed and were for a very long time. It was Australia who decided to call them Border Collies (as opposed to simply sheepdogs) so they go down as being an Australian breed :laugh: From a KC point of view Aus developed the breed, even though they originated in the UK.

[Kirislin]

Re the Border Collie, it sounds as though even that although Australia is the official country of development, overseas countries allow a lot of variants that the country of development does not. There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?[/size]

The gap is just as wide over seas, in fact some of my friends in the US suggest it is wider as the Aust Show BC's seem to have retained more of their working working ability than in other countries.

The difference is that most other Kennel clubs will recognise legitimate ABCA/ISDS pedigrees and include them in the register. Aust won't. Legitimate colours and coats are included in the register, Australia restricts the colours/coats it will allow. So either a. we miss out on some great dogs or b. dogs are registered to fit the standard.

And that's an interesting comment about development of the BC. I always thought BC's were of Scottish descent. Perhaps it was the show standard that was developed in Australia which is why some of the true working dogs are excluded? ;)

In a nutshell, they are a UK breed and were for a very long time. It was Australia who decided to call them Border Collies (as opposed to simply sheepdogs) so they go down as being an Australian breed :laugh: From a KC point of view Aus developed the breed, even though they originated in the UK.

Wow! I never knew this!

[Vickie]

In Border Collies the big problem is that the ANKC standard is so restrictive that it is limiting our gene pool. Smooth coat is allowed all over the world but ANKC will only allow rough coat. At the moment 8 of the top 10 bcs in the UK are smooth coat but Australian breeders can't make use of them. Pricked ears are permitted all over the world but ANKC won't recognise them, so gene pool is limited further. Then the big one is colour. The rest of the world recognises any colour (with white not dominating) but ANKC only allows a selection of colours.

But there are plenty of main registered BC's with pricked ears in Aust. and plenty of main registered non allowable colours too. It seems acceptable amongst the community to main register them and breed from them...they just don't show them.

There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?

I think its even more the case overseas. The BC's shown overseas are predominantly Aust lines & their deviation to the original working dog seems even more exaggerated.

Yep but its still the limited register in Australia which stops you from being able to breed them. Take away the limited register or allow dogs which are not permissible according to the standard in the show ring and as long as the dog is of the same breed and parents are pure bred you could still use them to breed with.

That is pretty much what happens anyway in BCs, despite the limited register

The difference is that most other Kennel clubs will recognise legitimate ABCA/ISDS pedigrees and include them in the register. Aust won't.

I have owned 2 main register BC's with ABCA/ISDS pedigrees. Has this changed now? ANKC registered both of mine.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Vickie

[espinay2]

An important thing to remember about colour is that it is a VERY breed specific issue. To understand colour, its effect and its issues in one breed does not mean the same things apply to another. We should be very careful about applying a broad brush to the issue of wether 'unaccepted' colours should be accepted. In some breeds it may be a good idea due to issues relating to the breeds history and genepool. In other breeds the totally opposite may apply. For example, in some breeds, a colour may be present in the genepool and unrelated to health issues or issues relating to other traits. For example, while 'hailstone' colouration/pattening may be something that has appeared in Labradors and would be interesting to see occur again (See mary roslin Williams' book for great info on 'odd colours such as this), the same could not be said of 'Silver' Labradors which are highly likely from a recent Weimaraner cross (and look it). You would never expect to see a merle Schnauzer as the colour does not occur naturally in the breed. Same with black on a Pyr - with no recorded incidences of registered purebred Pyrs which have markings of black hair to the root, any dog claiming to be purebred and having this colouration would be looked upon with extreme suspicion. It is about knowing the gene pool, distinguishing what does and what might occur based on known occurrences in the genepool, knowing if there is a particular reason associated with not wanting that colour (and in many cases for many breeds that reason is historically valid and needs to be accepted) and knowing what could not occur based on knowledge of the genepool too. Colour is not a 'black and white' issue.

Edited May 11, 2015 by espinay2

[Stressmagnet]

I will say that I find the mosaic Labradors incredibly beautiful.

[DeltaCharlie]

In Border Collies the big problem is that the ANKC standard is so restrictive that it is limiting our gene pool. Smooth coat is allowed all over the world but ANKC will only allow rough coat. At the moment 8 of the top 10 bcs in the UK are smooth coat but Australian breeders can't make use of them. Pricked ears are permitted all over the world but ANKC won't recognise them, so gene pool is limited further. Then the big one is colour. The rest of the world recognises any colour (with white not dominating) but ANKC only allows a selection of colours.

But there are plenty of main registered BC's with pricked ears in Aust. and plenty of main registered non allowable colours too. It seems acceptable amongst the community to main register them and breed from them...they just don't show them.

There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?

I think its even more the case overseas. The BC's shown overseas are predominantly Aust lines & their deviation to the original working dog seems even more exaggerated.

Yep but its still the limited register in Australia which stops you from being able to breed them. Take away the limited register or allow dogs which are not permissible according to the standard in the show ring and as long as the dog is of the same breed and parents are pure bred you could still use them to breed with.

That is pretty much what happens anyway in BCs, despite the limited register

The difference is that most other Kennel clubs will recognise legitimate ABCA/ISDS pedigrees and include them in the register. Aust won't.

I have owned 2 main register BC's with ABCA/ISDS pedigrees. Has this changed now? ANKC registered both of mine.

Yes I know of many smooth coated MR border collies and plenty more with pricked ears or incorrectly registered colours. If anyone was to ever alert the ANKC to the particular dog though they can have their MR stripped.

Vickie your girls are the same as ours. MR and also ISDS. The reason they get ANKC registration is because their parents have KC registration overseas. ANKC will only MR register them if they have another KC registration, whereas other countries will give them KC registration them if they have ISDS only, doesn't have to be KC in another country. Eg we bred a few litters that were only sporting registered in Aus but could be exported to another country with ISDS registration. That ISDS registration would allow them to get KC registration in the new country (as other countries recognise isds). Then they could be reimported back to Aus with their new KC registration and be given MR here. Its really stupid...

[WreckitWhippet]

Breeders who incorrectly register colours should be struck off. Try being a breeder and looking through a pedigree expecting to find factual information, only to find it's not.

[Agility Dogs]

In Border Collies the big problem is that the ANKC standard is so restrictive that it is limiting our gene pool. Smooth coat is allowed all over the world but ANKC will only allow rough coat. At the moment 8 of the top 10 bcs in the UK are smooth coat but Australian breeders can't make use of them. Pricked ears are permitted all over the world but ANKC won't recognise them, so gene pool is limited further. Then the big one is colour. The rest of the world recognises any colour (with white not dominating) but ANKC only allows a selection of colours.

But there are plenty of main registered BC's with pricked ears in Aust. and plenty of main registered non allowable colours too. It seems acceptable amongst the community to main register them and breed from them...they just don't show them.

There is a huge gap between working border lines and show border lines here, but is that not the case overseas, then?

I think its even more the case overseas. The BC's shown overseas are predominantly Aust lines & their deviation to the original working dog seems even more exaggerated.

Yep but its still the limited register in Australia which stops you from being able to breed them. Take away the limited register or allow dogs which are not permissible according to the standard in the show ring and as long as the dog is of the same breed and parents are pure bred you could still use them to breed with.

That is pretty much what happens anyway in BCs, despite the limited register

The difference is that most other Kennel clubs will recognise legitimate ABCA/ISDS pedigrees and include them in the register. Aust won't.

I have owned 2 main register BC's with ABCA/ISDS pedigrees. Has this changed now? ANKC registered both of mine.

Yes I know of many smooth coated MR border collies and plenty more with pricked ears or incorrectly registered colours. If anyone was to ever alert the ANKC to the particular dog though they can have their MR stripped.

Vickie your girls are the same as ours. MR and also ISDS. The reason they get ANKC registration is because their parents have KC registration overseas. ANKC will only MR register them if they have another KC registration, whereas other countries will give them KC registration them if they have ISDS only, doesn't have to be KC in another country. Eg we bred a few litters that were only sporting registered in Aus but could be exported to another country with ISDS registration. That ISDS registration would allow them to get KC registration in the new country (as other countries recognise isds). Then they could be reimported back to Aus with their new KC registration and be given MR here. Its really stupid...

This. :)

Snap is a good example of this. If he were to go to NZ or just about anywhere else the KC would register him. In AU though he is on the sporting register, to me it's not an issue because I know the lines he comes from and am happy with that, but it just seems a bit silly.

[Kirislin]

Breeders who incorrectly register colours should be struck off. Try being a breeder and looking through a pedigree expecting to find factual information, only to find it's not.

Sometimes it's not always the breeders fault. Sometimes the computer system just wont allow them to accurately register colour. In IGs seals and sables must be registered as black, but in fact they're really fawn although they dont look like it. It's very confusing and not an accurate description.

I'd also like to see dilutes registered as such. If a dog is blue or blue brindle (not talking about IGs here) we know it's a dilute but fawns can be dilutes too, but they're just registered as fawn. And speaking of fawn, there's so many shades! From the palest creamy colour through to gorgeous pinky shades through to golds and reds, but with some breeds they just have to be called fawn.

[WreckitWhippet]

Not much funs when you are trying to avoid dilutes and yellows and reds are listed as fawn/brindle. Perhaps they should just list the nose colour :laugh:

[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?

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?

You could be right, I'm not so sure what passes for "liver" these days... We had a "Liver" GSP and I too believe that she was in fact very close to the "Chocolate" of say a Labrador. Our Flatties were/are Chocolate, which is not an accepted colour. My first Flattie's Dam was Liver, there was much more Red in it, almost plum like.

Now, I don't show my dogs, so its possible that judgement on this topic may have eased. I have certainly seen photos of "Liver Flatcoats" that appear to be chocolate not Liver.

I know that in the past there were certainly those who viewed Chocolate Flatties as the equivalent of say "Silver Labs." But perhaps opinion has changed on this.

Which is another interesting point. If the judges and breeders are now going to accept what is effectively a (gradual?) change in the colour, why insist on the colour in the first place?

(And why get so shitty when I point out that my Flatties are in fact Chocolate Brown and not "Liver.")

It's not just the issue of Breeding and/or Showing (although that is clearly what drives it.) I know of a case in which it was strongly rumoured that a Golden Flattie pup in a large litter, rather than being celebrated as a rare occurrence, was PTS.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Big D

[YOLO]

Personally, I think it was a mistake to split retrievers up by color way back when (somewhere around 1910). Flatcoat health, particularly cancer risk, is a concern, and the population is small enough that it may be difficult to breed away from the health concerns.

The whole practice of breeding for solid colors was some silly 19th century notion of purity. Too bad it made it into so many standards.

For some discussion of the origins of yellow in flatcoat lines . . .

http://retrieverman.net/2008/12/12/sewallis-evelyn-shirley-and-some-flat-coated-retriever-history/

There are many different stories of the origins of Flat-Coats and Goldens, and perhaps there is an element of truth to all of them. :-)

You make an interesting point regarding solids. In some breeds, too much solid is seen as not a good thing, as it indicates a too narrow breeding history. In some breeds, "solids" are practically unheard of.

This is one of my gripes with Flatties. Both my black dogs had/have red flashes, a sure sign of a Liver not too far back in the family tree.

Incidentally this is a sure sign that both came from a particular breeder (which I know they did) who was known to breed from Livers, a practice frowned upon by most other breeders.

SO here you have the crazy case where a dog can not only be accepted (ie solid Liver) but become a champion, and yet STILL be excluded from the gene pool because there offspring are deemed undesirable.

The silly thing is that when we talk about "non-standard" colours people immediately jump on the "cross-breeding" bandwagon. So a Golden Flatcoat is immediately seen as evidence of some diabolical dalliance with a Goldie. WHY?

I could just as easily crossbreed with solid black Labrador lines, and if you were relying on colour to spot a mongrel you would be stumped.

Or what if I bred with say a black Poodle? WOuld you not be able to tell that the result was not a Flatcoat?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Big D

[YOLO]

The problem isnt the standard - they are pretty much the same world wide . The problem is the limited register because dogs which dont fit the standard due to colour cant be put on the main register.

Agreed. In the past, breeders could use restricted colour dogs in their breeding program even though they could not be exhibited, and the gene pool was not automatically reduced by the limited register.

Our system assumes that if a dog or bitch does not meet the standard entirely, then it is not worthy of being considered for breeding. This might make sense in breeds where the gene pool is large, but definitely does not make sense where only small gene pools are available AND the restrictive trait neither affects health nor breed type.

There could be a case made, in some breeds, for allowing restricted colours to be bred on main register, but not shown. Application by breed clubs could be made to the ANKC for this in the same way that application can be made for inter-variety breeding etc.trait.

But this is the silly thing, take a look at the shows for some breeds, and its like a glorious collection of badly made quilts, spots, patches, ticking, you name it, and nobody bats an eye. But turn up with a black retriever where the colour is not 100% uniform and you'll be politely told not to embarrass yourself.