Colour Not To Standard?

[Keshwar]

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

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

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

What created most standards were people who were passionate about their particular breed. People that spent a lot of time working out the ideal breed type for their particular breed. No they probably weren't geneticists, but I bet they knew a hell of lot about how their dogs worked and what traits they wanted in their particular breed.

Remember that most breed standards are over 100 years old and were developed in a very different world from what exists today. The dogs that the standards were/are based on had to work as well as show. Shows were meant to show off excellent breeding stock. That breeding stock needed to be able to produce dogs that were able to do what they were bred for. Sighthounds were used to hunt, terriers were used for ratting etc, gun dogs used for retrieving, pointing game, and working dogs actually worked.

No they weren't geneticists but I bet they knew a hell of a lot about correct movement and health as for these people their reputations, their livilihoods, their passion all depended on knowing what was a good dog.

If you want to through away the standard go for it, but don't come back crying to those of us who have stuck with it that your dogs don't look like X and can't do Y anymore. Because ultimately what you will end up with is just another cross bred with a fancy name.

[Kirislin]

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

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

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

I've seen show dogs that I very much doubt could perform their original function too.

[dragonwoman]

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

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

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

What created most standards were people who were passionate about their particular breed. People that spent a lot of time working out the ideal breed type for their particular breed. No they probably weren't geneticists, but I bet they knew a hell of lot about how their dogs worked and what traits they wanted in their particular breed.

Remember that most breed standards are over 100 years old and were developed in a very different world from what exists today. The dogs that the standards were/are based on had to work as well as show. Shows were meant to show off excellent breeding stock. That breeding stock needed to be able to produce dogs that were able to do what they were bred for. Sighthounds were used to hunt, terriers were used for ratting etc, gun dogs used for retrieving, pointing game, and working dogs actually worked.

No they weren't geneticists but I bet they knew a hell of a lot about correct movement and health as for these people their reputations, their livilihoods, their passion all depended on knowing what was a good dog.

If you want to through away the standard go for it, but don't come back crying to those of us who have stuck with it that your dogs don't look like X and can't do Y anymore. Because ultimately what you will end up with is just another cross bred with a fancy name.

Well put.................a lot of twaddle in this thread, wish people would do their history, early dog people didn't need genetics to know what to breed, performance decided it..................and culling which is a dirty word nowadays

[miss whippy]

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

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

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

What created most standards were people who were passionate about their particular breed. People that spent a lot of time working out the ideal breed type for their particular breed. No they probably weren't geneticists, but I bet they knew a hell of lot about how their dogs worked and what traits they wanted in their particular breed.

Remember that most breed standards are over 100 years old and were developed in a very different world from what exists today. The dogs that the standards were/are based on had to work as well as show. Shows were meant to show off excellent breeding stock. That breeding stock needed to be able to produce dogs that were able to do what they were bred for. Sighthounds were used to hunt, terriers were used for ratting etc, gun dogs used for retrieving, pointing game, and working dogs actually worked.

No they weren't geneticists but I bet they knew a hell of a lot about correct movement and health as for these people their reputations, their livilihoods, their passion all depended on knowing what was a good dog.

If you want to through away the standard go for it, but don't come back crying to those of us who have stuck with it that your dogs don't look like X and can't do Y anymore. Because ultimately what you will end up with is just another cross bred with a fancy name.

I dont think anyone is suggesting throwing away the standard, and outcrossing does not preclude the use of a standard. The point you make very well, is that the world is different from what it was back then, we dont have the functional test of work for many of the breeds we still have today, and to be honest, many of the show bred dogs would have serious trouble doing what they were originally meant for. The standards are not enough to retain this side of the dog. The show ring has no way of testing these qualities. Not only that, but the language in any of the standards I have read is so open to interpretation, it is impossible to quantify most of it. 'Moderate' or 'long' are seen differently in the eyes of todays exhibitors to those of the original creators, due to the comparative nature of the terms. It is all relative to what you see, and if you look back at what the whippet looked like 100 years ago, and compare that to that of today, you can see very clearly how interpretation has changed.

[Kirislin]

Well put.................a lot of twaddle in this thread, wish people would do their history, early dog people didn't need genetics to know what to breed, performance decided it..................and culling which is a dirty word nowadays

Yep and look at how much breeds have changed over the years.

Back onto whippets for me. They were supposed to be small enough to hide under a poachers coat, and silent when they hunted so as not to draw attention to themselves or their owners. I wonder how many whippets could be hidden under a coat now.

[OutOfSightHound]

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

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

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

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

Pedigrees predate KC's but the studbook only "closed" when KC's got involved.

I'm exteremely familiar with ISDS border collies and there are seperate issues there with the management side ignoring memebrs concerns (on an EBV program for eplilepsy) and not releasing health data or enforcing health testing (which they have done in the past). Performance breeding is by no means perfect, but once again its competition that has shaped some of the darker issues. Though on the whole perfomance dogs suffer less from extreme confimation and temprement issues due to the nature of sport. They do though suffer the same problems of popular sires and inbreeding. Its not immune.

Winton's Cap appearing in EVERY ISDS BC pedigree becasue he was such a successful dog, and there have a been few attempts to recreate him by some severe line breeding. Had trialing not become a sport and the dogs stayed a purely working breed I wonder if ISDS border collies would have been better off? Trialing is what made Wintons Cap so popular.

Working terrier shows are NOT competitions they are a display of working terriers The Hound Hunting club of Victoria do a similar thing.. the show is a side show. When I talk about sport I don't mean competitive sport, I mean taking your terrier ratting, or your bloodhound out to hunt Sambar deer (that is legal). Hunting Hare and Fox is also legal if the fox or hare is NOT released from a trap and is flushed from the undergrowth etc towards the hunter. SPort means getting active with your dog, and there are plenty of sports out there to keep your dogs in good shape and help guide a breeding program without it being competitive.

Breeding a BC for trialing (ie getting the sheep the the run at the fastest pace with least errors) is not the same a breeding a BC that can work a 14 hour day in the shed and paddock. The farm BC only has to be good enough NOT the best.

Same as hunting dogs, they have to be able to catch dinner, or find the injuried deer you shot, or get the rats out of the horse feed shed. They have to be good enough. This means that all adequate dogs geta chance to breed and not just the best which means your gene pool has a wider bredth and depth.

Edited May 27, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[megan_]

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).

[Salukifan]

Well put.................a lot of twaddle in this thread, wish people would do their history, early dog people didn't need genetics to know what to breed, performance decided it..................and culling which is a dirty word nowadays

Yep and look at how much breeds have changed over the years.

Back onto whippets for me. They were supposed to be small enough to hide under a poachers coat, and silent when they hunted so as not to draw attention to themselves or their owners. I wonder how many whippets could be hidden under a coat now.

One of the things that strikes me about the old Whippet photos was the degree of variation in the heights of dogs. Given that you had dogs with Greyhound, IG and terrier ancestry, that doesn't suprise me. Perhaps this was part of the reason they decided to put minimum and maximum heights in the breeds standard.

On the issue of show dogs, conformation extremes and fitness for function, I am in furious agreement with you. However I do not regard that as a reason to outcross or change the breed standard which calls for moderation.

[Kirislin]

Well put.................a lot of twaddle in this thread, wish people would do their history, early dog people didn't need genetics to know what to breed, performance decided it..................and culling which is a dirty word nowadays

Yep and look at how much breeds have changed over the years.

Back onto whippets for me. They were supposed to be small enough to hide under a poachers coat, and silent when they hunted so as not to draw attention to themselves or their owners. I wonder how many whippets could be hidden under a coat now.

One of the things that strikes me about the old Whippet photos was the degree of variation in the heights of dogs. Given that you had dogs with Greyhound, IG and terrier ancestry, that doesn't suprise me. Perhaps this was part of the reason they decided to put minimum and maximum heights in the breeds standard.

On the issue of show dogs, conformation extremes and fitness for function, I am in furious agreement with you. However I do not regard that as a reason to outcross or change the breed standard which calls for moderation.

very true. I've often thought to myself that the lines were very blurred regarding whippets and IG's 100 or more years ago. I see photos and think it could have been either one. Even Mary Lowes book The English Whippet has Missy and Turlu?, something like that, anyway, alot of people insist they're IGs and certainly when the painting was done I dont think whippets were a recognised breed.

[Salukifan]

very true. I've often thought to myself that the lines were very blurred regarding whippets and IG's 100 or more years ago. I see photos and think it could have been either one. Even Mary Lowes book The English Whippet has Missy and Turlu?, something like that, anyway, alot of people insist they're IGs and certainly when the painting was done I dont think whippets were a recognised breed.

Best explanation of the "why's" of a breed standard I have ever read.

[Maddy]

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

she's gone to God now.

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

IMG_1990cs by kirislin, on Flickr

Penny at 12 by kirislin, on Flickr

My dilute whippet (whose name is also Penny :D ) has dark eyes. As has been mentioned before- I think it was in a thread about greyhounds- a dilute dog can't have a brown eye (they all have amber eyes) but as with everything, you do get variation in shades. I've had dilute dogs with pale, yellow amber eyes and other dilute dogs with eyes so darkly amber that they appeared brown.

Equally, I've had non dilutes with fairly poor pigment in their eyes, making them appear paler than some amber eyes. In the case of breed standards that mention eye colour in terms of pigment strength (rather than actual colour), an amber eye should be fine as long as it is richly pigmented The way I see it, "dark" and "brown only" are not the same thing.

Excuse the derpy photo, had to find one taken in bright light so that pupil wouldn't obscure iris colour so much.

[Dame Aussie]

Has anyone here suggested that colours that are not currently in the standard should be allowed 'on a whim'? Has anyone suggested that we should just throw out the standard and ignore it? I think anyone here with the view that colours not currently in whichever hypothetical standard should be included, are only suggesting that it should be done with careful consideration of the health implications and the function of the breed. I'm not sure why you are still disagreeing.

The original 'why' that precluded some colours from some breeds may be lost, but why should we be stuck with that? We are in a much better position now to know the actual ramifications of colour choice or any other visible trait than those who wrote the standard were. A lot of the time these colour choices were simply omissions. Some are just a drift in definition or because at the time the standards were written, the genetics of colour were not understood.

The standards should not be held up as some unassailable document of pure wisdom, they do not deserve it. It is fair and sensible to question their 'wisdom' regularly. Dog breeds are not static. Knowledge is not static. The reliance on 'because the standard says so' is frankly lazy.

I found myself nodding my head at this statement.

Yes, completely agree.

[OutOfSightHound]

Has anyone here suggested that colours that are not currently in the standard should be allowed 'on a whim'? Has anyone suggested that we should just throw out the standard and ignore it? I think anyone here with the view that colours not currently in whichever hypothetical standard should be included, are only suggesting that it should be done with careful consideration of the health implications and the function of the breed. I'm not sure why you are still disagreeing.

The original 'why' that precluded some colours from some breeds may be lost, but why should we be stuck with that? We are in a much better position now to know the actual ramifications of colour choice or any other visible trait than those who wrote the standard were. A lot of the time these colour choices were simply omissions. Some are just a drift in definition or because at the time the standards were written, the genetics of colour were not understood.

The standards should not be held up as some unassailable document of pure wisdom, they do not deserve it. It is fair and sensible to question their 'wisdom' regularly. Dog breeds are not static. Knowledge is not static. The reliance on 'because the standard says so' is frankly lazy.

I found myself nodding my head at this statement.

Yes, completely agree.

Touche on that one :D

[miss whippy]

My avatar is a perfect example of dilute with dark eye and skin pigment. She is the creamiest of pale blue-fawn, but her eyes are as dark as any, and nose leather was indistinguishable from black when she was young. All UK lines. It's not impossible or really rare to have the combination, but why fault those that dont? There's no purpose to it, if the why of it was originally that they thought that light eyes affected eye sight, then since that has been debunked why hold onto it? And why not question it, and ask why it should not be re-thought..

[Salukifan]

My avatar is a perfect example of dilute with dark eye and skin pigment. She is the creamiest of pale blue-fawn, but her eyes are as dark as any, and nose leather was indistinguishable from black when she was young. All UK lines. It's not impossible or really rare to have the combination, but why fault those that dont? There's no purpose to it, if the why of it was originally that they thought that light eyes affected eye sight, then since that has been debunked why hold onto it? And why not question it, and ask why it should not be re-thought..

In the case of Whippets, rethought by whom? The Americans?

The originators of the breed didn't have an issue with eyes matching coat colour and, so far as I know, no such thought crossed their minds. They have only to look at the eyes of raptors and some other predatory mammals to refute any such thought.

[RuralPug]

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.

[miss whippy]

My avatar is a perfect example of dilute with dark eye and skin pigment. She is the creamiest of pale blue-fawn, but her eyes are as dark as any, and nose leather was indistinguishable from black when she was young. All UK lines. It's not impossible or really rare to have the combination, but why fault those that dont? There's no purpose to it, if the why of it was originally that they thought that light eyes affected eye sight, then since that has been debunked why hold onto it? And why not question it, and ask why it should not be re-thought..

In the case of Whippets, rethought by whom? The Americans?

The originators of the breed didn't have an issue with eyes matching coat colour and, so far as I know, no such thought crossed their minds. They have only to look at the eyes of raptors and some other predatory mammals to refute any such thought.

I was using that as an example of a standard that excludes a colour for no good reason.. one that you are familiar with and can contextualise.. extend that to whatever other standard has a similar issue of excluding a colour for no good reason. Which is why we are on this thread..

Isn't that a reason to ask why not add a colour back in if it is in the breed? The premise of the whole thread. 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. Or is the american whippet standard an exception in your eyes because it is not the original? I'm trying to get to the crux of your argument. Your comments seem to be conflicting, so I am trying to figure out where you actually stand. It seems as though you feel it may be okay if its well thought out and researched and all the why's have been considered and someone else more knowledgeable has instigated the questioning, but at the same time seems you are just fundamentally opposed to any deviation from the standards as written.

[Salukifan]

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.

[Salukifan]

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.

[Keshwar]

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.