Colour Not To Standard?

[OutOfSightHound]

Good breeders know that colour (always excepting dangerous dilutes etc.) is really just the frosting on the cake after soundness, health, temperament and type.

Good breeders also know that there is usually a sound historial reason in a breed for exclusions of colour and marking - sometimes it was just due to the job required, for instance you don't really want a spaniel or setter or riding hound with too much of a camouflage coat for it might be accidentally shot by a hunter, you might not want a herding breed that you cannot find among the stock etc. etc.

Sometimes a particular colour was believed to have been linked genetically with other traits undesirable to those developing the breed (which may be the reasoning behind the flat coat standard colour exclusions.)

Thus when a mating potentially combines excellent qualities in soundness, health, temperament and type but may produce a mismark or unwanted colour a good breeder will most likely proceed with fingers crossed that they get some specimens that are standard for colour and/or markings and will be prepared to find pet homes for any that don't. They would rarely, if ever, breed directly from a disallowed colour or mismark though.

Colour exclusions on the whole are political someone on a commitee when the dog was accepted into the KC studbook voted a colour in or out. Merle is allowed in KC border collies, but other colours are not yet merle has health issues attached to it. On the farm and in the shearing shed a good border collie is a good border collie. A farmer will breed it regardless, if you tell him/her their dog is not to standard I will tell you that the their reply will be "The dogs works therefore is to standard".

[OutOfSightHound]

This is causing major angst in border collies as a heap of colours have been excluded for no good reason. Most of the exclusions are just really dopey as you can have a black tri but not a chocolate tri but you can have a chocolate dog. It makes zero genetic sense and is an embarrassment.

Not to mention my gorgy sable border collie that is excluded.

You can put them on the limit register.

If there is no health reason to exclude a colour then I don't think they should be excluded. But weirdly blue is allowed and that does have a health issue.

A good working border Collie is NEVER the wrong colour. In fact working studbooks have no specifications on colour and will except dogs without pedigrees on a merit register (ie passes a working test). So if your dog is of Merit get it registered there.

[OutOfSightHound]

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.

I think this is petty and it exactly whats wrong with KC dog world. Lots of petty bitty rules that people dobb each other in over. People make the rules and then use them to smite their rivals. Its why show dog culture is so toxic these days. Well then if you think people with non standard colours should be stuck off for breeding lets go for people who produce dogs with bad hearts dodgy hips, bad temprements etc etc. Oh hang on that was already discussed and everyone went NO NO NO to a compulsory health register. If people really cared about health and welfare colour would be the LAST of their worries.

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[OutOfSightHound]

As for those digging up the ole "links between colour and genetic faults" chestnut, I imagine this can be overcome by hanging garlic (or crystals) over the kennel, and/or getting a priest to perform an exorcism?

Or maybe we could actually catch up a couple of centuries and use MEDICAL SCIENCE?!?

I am 150% in favour of rigorous Hip/ Elbow/ Eye/ DNA testing of all available ancestors before breeding. Which for most breeds and most genetic problems, has naff all to do with colour.

There are a few, where either the genetic issues are present in the same bloodlines, or the skin pigment is itself a symptom of a skin type that can lead to other problems. But even there why not rely on the actual science rather than guessing?

The horrible irony is that by arbitrarily excluding dogs simply on colour, we further concentrate the gene-pool and make it that much harder to breed out the undesirable genetic problems.

Touche big D. Getting knickers in a twist over colour just because it so damn obvious, clouds what's going on underneath (dodgy eyes, hips, elbows, heart, kidneys the list goes on).

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[OutOfSightHound]

Excellent response, the founding fathers of my breed who drew up the first standard (and they were all working dog men) were specific in their colours because they knew that anything else hinted at impurity..............a standard is a standard, why not stick to it instead of suggesting changing it to suit whatever people have in their yard

I couldn't agree more.

Its ALL political. Most standards were written by bored Victorian house wives with too much time on their hands. There are also some very weird myths on colour with no scientific backing in working circles. White greyhounds don't have the heart to chase, Border collies need a black roof on their mouth to be good workers. Just old wives tales. To be honest most colours are political or old wives tale beliefs. Working people didn't write the standards show people did! Working breeders have dogs that make show people go oh thats not a border collie its a cross. (nope is working standard).

Victorians created the dog show as display of conspicious consuption and wealth. Getting a dog breed standardised and excepted into the KC bought you fame and sometimes fortune. It also was a form of eltism and eugenics saying my dog has better breeding than yours.There are more dog breeds that exist outside the Kennel clubs than in them and standardising any breed as far as I can see leads to the downfall of its functionality when its based on looks alone.

As to impurity working terriers were (and still are) regularly outcrossed to certain breeds and some believed in the superiority of certain crosses over that of others when working in the backcross (lurcher people still have heated arguments over this). I'm sure that when they wrote the standard someone wanted to make sure someone elses lines couldnt be included in the "new" breed.

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[Salukifan]

Excellent response, the founding fathers of my breed who drew up the first standard (and they were all working dog men) were specific in their colours because they knew that anything else hinted at impurity..............a standard is a standard, why not stick to it instead of suggesting changing it to suit whatever people have in their yard

I couldn't agree more.

Its ALL political. Most standards were written by bored Victorian house wives with too much time on their hands. There are also some very weird myths on colour with no scientific backing in working circles. White greyhounds don't have the heart to chase, Border collies need a black roof on their mouth to be good workers. Just old wives tales. To be honest most colours are political or old wives tale beliefs. Working people didn't write the standards show people did! Working breeders have dogs that make show people go oh thats not a border collie its a cross. (nope is working standard).

Victorians created the dog show as display of conspicious consuption and wealth. Getting a dog breed standardised and excepted into the KC bought you fame and sometimes fortune. It also was a form of eltism and eugenics saying my dog has better breeding than yours.There are more dog breeds that exist outside the Kennel clubs than in them and standardising any breed as far as I can see leads to the downfall of its functionality when its based on looks alone.

As to impurity working terriers were regularly outcrossed to certain breeds and some believed in the superiority of certain crosses over that of others when working in the backcross (lurcher people still have heated arguments over this). I'm sure that when they wrote the standard someone wanted to make sure someone elses lines couldnt be included in the "new" breed.

SOME colours are indications that the dog is not purebred. I think you'll find the keeping of pedigrees and the idea of purebreds predates those "bored Victorian housewifes". It was men who wrote most standards and the idea of of keeping pedigrees and not breeding outside them predates the origins of dog showing by hundreds of years.

Show me a black and tan or a liver "Whippet" and I'll show you a crossbred dog. Does that matter? YES. What is introduced along with that colour may be temperament and behavioural qualities incompatible with the breed's purpose. Espinay wrote a good post about this.

The Whippet breed standard does says "colour immaterial" because colour has no bearing on function. However, some colours are still excluded for the reason I state above. Should teh colour occur in a pup of verifiable pedigree, that will have to be thought about quite carefully.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Pjrt]

Oh my dog OutOfSightHound you are talking my language!

[OutOfSightHound]

Excellent response, the founding fathers of my breed who drew up the first standard (and they were all working dog men) were specific in their colours because they knew that anything else hinted at impurity..............a standard is a standard, why not stick to it instead of suggesting changing it to suit whatever people have in their yard

I couldn't agree more.

Its ALL political. Most standards were written by bored Victorian house wives with too much time on their hands. There are also some very weird myths on colour with no scientific backing in working circles. White greyhounds don't have the heart to chase, Border collies need a black roof on their mouth to be good workers. Just old wives tales. To be honest most colours are political or old wives tale beliefs. Working people didn't write the standards show people did! Working breeders have dogs that make show people go oh thats not a border collie its a cross. (nope is working standard).

Also with the outcross projects for the Irish wolf hound, griffon, Finnish Laphund and Irish red and white setter, purebred in the KC sense is changing.

Victorians created the dog show as display of conspicious consuption and wealth. Getting a dog breed standardised and excepted into the KC bought you fame and sometimes fortune. It also was a form of eltism and eugenics saying my dog has better breeding than yours.There are more dog breeds that exist outside the Kennel clubs than in them and standardising any breed as far as I can see leads to the downfall of its functionality when its based on looks alone.

As to impurity working terriers were regularly outcrossed to certain breeds and some believed in the superiority of certain crosses over that of others when working in the backcross (lurcher people still have heated arguments over this). I'm sure that when they wrote the standard someone wanted to make sure someone elses lines couldnt be included in the "new" breed.

SOME colours are indications that the dog is not purebred. I think you'll find the keeping of pedigrees and the idea of purebreds predates those "bored Victorian housewifes". It was men who wrote most standards and the idea of of keeping pedigrees and not breeding outside them predates the origins of dog showing by hundreds of years.

Show me a black and tan or a liver "Whippet" and I'll show you a crossbred dog. Does that matter? YES. What is introduced along with that colour may be temperament and behavioural qualities incompatible with the breed's purpose. Espinay wrote a good post about this.

The Whippet breed standard does says "colour immaterial" because colour has no bearing on function. However, some colours are still excluded for the reason I state above. Should teh colour occur in a pup of verifiable pedigree, that will have to be thought about quite carefully.

The working whippiters version of purebred and yours are VERY different. I know working whippet people and "purity" has nothing to do with a good purebred whippet. In fact purebreed means breeds ture, even if the dogs Great grandfather was a Kelpie. I also know a few good working whippets with some kelpie in their background (working people love to outcross to get hybrid vigour and traits they think are uselful). So NO it doesnt matter unless your showing. I have NEVER heard a working whippet person question a dogs whippetness over colour. You have to get your head out of KC land as the working world has no need for the KC and its ideas on purity. In working land colour and "purity" are irrelevent.

Also with all the out cross projects for the Irish wolfhound, Irish red and White setter, Finish Lapphunds, Chinooks as well Griffons going on in the Nordic countries and UK, your going to have to change your ideas on pure bred. Kennel clubs OS are realising that dogs cant exist in a closed gene pool and are accepting Country of origin populations into their studbooks as well. The sciencie is catching up with dog breeding.

Also when working people keep a pedigree (like Working kelpie council) its the work side of the animal they are interested in, not its "purity". The koolie club accepts 1/2 and 3/4 bred in its studbook just like the dairy and cattle studbooks do. The working ability of the animal is what is of importance and what the pedigree are kept for not its "purity".

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[Salukifan]

The working whippiters version of purebred and yours are VERY different. I know working whippet people and "purity" has nothing to do with a good purebred whippet. In fact purebreed means breeds ture, even if the dogs Great grandfather was a Kelpie. I also know a few good working whippets with some kelpie in their background (working people love to outcross to get hybrid vigour and traits they think are uselful). So NO it doesnt matter unless your showing. I have NEVER heard a working whippet person question a dogs whippetness over colour. You have to get your head out of KC land as the working world has no need for the KC and its ideas on purity. In working land colour and "purity" are irrelevent.

Vive la difference!

I have no issue with what working Whippet people wish to do or breed. They can thank their lucky stars if they've chosen not to outcross to BCs for "vigour and traits" like some have - a whole new little selection of health issues unknown in those irrelevant pedigree dogs. So much for "hybrid vigour".,

My head will remain firmly in KC land because that is what I choose to breed and own. I'm interested in soundness, type and pedigree. Why pedigree? Because ancestry is the best indicator of the tr i"m traits I'm looking for.

Perhaps you should famiiarise yourself a little with the rules of this forum and tone down the patronising posts. You clearly hold your views strongly. That's fine but its not carte blanche to rubbish those of others.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Kirislin]

alot of whippet colours have been lost or are very rare here. Even since I've known the breed, a mere 30 years there are colours I never see in pedigrees anymore although I do see them in the non peds occasionally.

I've mostly lost interest in pedigree whippets now as they're getting so big and their shape has changed so they no longer resemble the curvy compact little dogs I fell in love with. If I bred the kind that appealed to me and tried to show them I'd be laughed out of the ring.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Kirislin

[OutOfSightHound]

In Pyreneans, black to the root is specifically excluded and has been right from the very first standards which were developed in conjunction with the shepherds who used the dogs. It was excluded as it was considered a clear sign of crossbreeding which brought with it behaviour traits that were very much unwanted. In a livestock guardian, crossbreeding with higher prey drive breeds creats a dog totally useless for its role. Colour can be vitally important in what it tells us because of the traits that may very likely accompany it.

I dont think you understand that the standard is a show dog thing. Many of the LSG people who "work" and use their dogs have no qualms about non standard colours if the dog is protecting their flock. In fact Kangal and Kutchi are reguarly outcrossed to Tazi(sighthounds) for hybrid vigour. You can see this in country of orgin type central Asian Shepherds and some of the Russian shepherds. If you have been to central Asia you will often see the products of a cross and they are extremely common. The back cross of an LSG x tazi x tazi (F2) is highly valued for its boldness in hunting wolves. The Aloof temprement of Tazi lends itself well to the mix in LSG and many Tazi are also used as guard dogs and not just hunters.

Your also misunderstanding what prey drive is. Any dog who works has had their prey drive modified to herd, guard or hunt. Either way they have prey drive. Its why F1 lurchers of LSG, herding, sighthound types are so desired and work so well no matter which way you back cross the dogs into the orginal gene pools.

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[OutOfSightHound]

The working whippiters version of purebred and yours are VERY different. I know working whippet people and "purity" has nothing to do with a good purebred whippet. In fact purebreed means breeds ture, even if the dogs Great grandfather was a Kelpie. I also know a few good working whippets with some kelpie in their background (working people love to outcross to get hybrid vigour and traits they think are uselful). So NO it doesnt matter unless your showing. I have NEVER heard a working whippet person question a dogs whippetness over colour. You have to get your head out of KC land as the working world has no need for the KC and its ideas on purity. In working land colour and "purity" are irrelevent.

Also with all the out cross projects for the Irish wolfhound, Irish red and White setter, Finish Lapphunds, Chinooks as well Griffons going on in the Nordic countries and UK, your going to have to change your ideas on pure bred. Kennel clubs OS are realising that dogs cant exist in a closed gene pool and are accepting Country of origin populations into their studbooks as well. The sciencie is catching up with dog breeding.

Also when working people keep a pedigree (like Working kelpie council) its the work side of the animal they are interested in, not its "purity". The koolie club accepts 1/2 and 3/4 bred in its studbook just like the dairy and cattle studbooks do. The working ability of the animal is what is of importance and what the pedigree are kept for not its "purity".

Vive la difference!

I have no issue with what working Whippet people wish to do or breed. They can thank their lucky stars if they've chosen not to outcross to BCs for "vigour and traits" like some have - a whole new little selection of health issues unknown in those irrelevant pedigree dogs. So much for "hybrid vigour".,

My head will remain firmly in KC land because that is what I choose to breed and own. I'm interested in soundness, type and pedigree. Why pedigree? Because ancestry is the best indicator of the tr i"m traits I'm looking for.

Perhaps you should famiiarise yourself a little with the rules of this forum and tone down the patronising posts. You clearly hold your views strongly. That's fine but its not carte blanche to rubbish those of others.

I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love.

Your also ignoring what KC clubs overseas are realising, that for breeds to be sustainable outcrossing needs to become a regular tool in a breeders tool box, not a last ditch effort to save a breed.

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[Kirislin]

The working whippiters version of purebred and yours are VERY different. I know working whippet people and "purity" has nothing to do with a good purebred whippet. In fact purebreed means breeds ture, even if the dogs Great grandfather was a Kelpie. I also know a few good working whippets with some kelpie in their background (working people love to outcross to get hybrid vigour and traits they think are uselful). So NO it doesnt matter unless your showing. I have NEVER heard a working whippet person question a dogs whippetness over colour. You have to get your head out of KC land as the working world has no need for the KC and its ideas on purity. In working land colour and "purity" are irrelevent.

Vive la difference!

I have no issue with what working Whippet people wish to do or breed. They can thank their lucky stars if they've chosen not to outcross to BCs for "vigour and traits" like some have - a whole new little selection of health issues unknown in those irrelevant pedigree dogs. So much for "hybrid vigour".,

My head will remain firmly in KC land because that is what I choose to breed and own. I'm interested in soundness, type and pedigree. Why pedigree? Because ancestry is the best indicator of the tr i"m traits I'm looking for.

Perhaps you should famiiarise yourself a little with the rules of this forum and tone down the patronising posts. You clearly hold your views strongly. That's fine but its not carte blanche to rubbish those of others.

I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love.

is this for real? When will it happen and what will be involved? How would dogs be selected?

[Salukifan]

I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love.

What breeds and what problems?

The issue with hybrid vigour is the assumption that outrcrossing in and of itself will "improve" health. That ONLY works if you are bringing in a gene pool where the issue you want to fix is unknown. That's not always easy to tell.

Hybrid vigour has not assisted in the elimination of PRA, HD or a range of other issues in the popular Poodle crosses, despite a lot of suggesting that it would. I gather it has in some other breed outcrosses but it was done VERY carefully and only after careful research.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Kirislin]

I'm loving this thread, it's so interesting!

[OutOfSightHound]

I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love.

What breeds and what problems?

The issue with hybrid vigour is the assumption that outrcrossing in and of itself will "improve" health. That ONLY works if you are bringing in a gene pool where the issue you want to fix is unknown. That's not always easy to tell.

Hybrid vigour has not assisted in the elimination of PRA, HD or a range of other issues in the popular Poodle crosses, despite a lot of suggesting that it would. I gather it has in some other breed outcrosses but it was done VERY carefully and only after careful research.

Now your just baiting and have closed your eyes to whats actually going on in the KC world. Just go out and get health insurance quotes for your breed and then a cross of your breed. Purebred dogs will ALWAYS cost more to insure becasue there is more risk of the insurance company having to payout. It's how insurance works Has nothing to do with the orginal cost of the dogs (especially since designer X's can cost more these days.)

When a Purebred dog costs less to insure than a mongeral we will have achieved the aims of what pedigree dog breeding is all about. Breeding BETTER dogs.

Edited May 26, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[OutOfSightHound]

The working whippiters version of purebred and yours are VERY different. I know working whippet people and "purity" has nothing to do with a good purebred whippet. In fact purebreed means breeds ture, even if the dogs Great grandfather was a Kelpie. I also know a few good working whippets with some kelpie in their background (working people love to outcross to get hybrid vigour and traits they think are uselful). So NO it doesnt matter unless your showing. I have NEVER heard a working whippet person question a dogs whippetness over colour. You have to get your head out of KC land as the working world has no need for the KC and its ideas on purity. In working land colour and "purity" are irrelevent.

Vive la difference!

I have no issue with what working Whippet people wish to do or breed. They can thank their lucky stars if they've chosen not to outcross to BCs for "vigour and traits" like some have - a whole new little selection of health issues unknown in those irrelevant pedigree dogs. So much for "hybrid vigour".,

My head will remain firmly in KC land because that is what I choose to breed and own. I'm interested in soundness, type and pedigree. Why pedigree? Because ancestry is the best indicator of the tr i"m traits I'm looking for.

Perhaps you should famiiarise yourself a little with the rules of this forum and tone down the patronising posts. You clearly hold your views strongly. That's fine but its not carte blanche to rubbish those of others.

I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love.

is this for real? When will it happen and what will be involved? How would dogs be selected?

It was a result of the legal settlement in the Irish wolf hound case with Dogs VIC. Sylvia Powers the Health and Welfare officer at Dogs Vitoria was the main architect of this so it might be worth writing to her about it. As far as I know it still has to go to the ANKC's AGM.

[Salukifan]

Now your just baiting and have closed your eyes to whats actually going on in the KC world. Just go out and get health insurance quotes for your breed and then a cross of your breed. Purebred dogs will ALWAYS cost more to insure becasue there is more risk of the insurance company having to payout. It's how insurance works Has nothing to do with the orginal cost of the dogs (especially since designer X's can cost more these days.)

When a Purebred dog costs less to insure than a mongeral we will have achieved the aims of what pedigree dog breeding is all about. Breeding BETTER dogs.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that "hybrid vigour" is a principle that needs careful application to achieve desired outcomes. Most studies I've read on it also say that beyond an F1 cross, any general improvements in heatlh are lost.

There are heatlh statistics carefully gathered on a range of pedigree dogs. Why? Because of their known ancestry. Few, if any health researchers gather statistics on the incidence of inheritable conditions in crossbreds. That does not mean they don't occur. Incidence? Pure speculation.

Insurance generally relies on statistical analysis. My vets on a number of occasions have told me that they see Whippets for vaccinations and skin tears. Pretty damn healthy for the most part although some issues are starting to rear their heads.

However, I will say that you should NOT aim to improve the health of a breed by outcrossing to stock where there are no records about heatlh issues. That is, quite simply, gambling. And you don't always win.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Kirislin]

Can breeders here foresee a time when outcrossing might happen with their breed?

[Kirislin]

I think whippets are getting more and more problems. I have a friend who woke up to find her puppy dead on her bed, heart problems. It was from a well known breeder. Retained testicles, heart problems, epilepsy, auto immune diseases, CDA and probably lots more I've never heard of.