Steve

Your whole post is interesting on the point of connection between genes, colour & deafness. Rangheld Primdal (Scandanavin) on the Tibbie Net website, talks about this. She refers to twp different views, which sure backs your point that it's not as simple as has been 'traditionally' thought. Tho' you have referred to even further research: The sW –genet is the most recessive gene. It produces extreme amounts of white and quite often the dog only has small, coloured markings around its eyes or on its head, ears or tail. sw will, in combination with S or si , give atypical particolor patterns. According to Ms. Catherine Marleys article on Lhasa Apso, she writes that the sw --gene often appears together with deafness in the inner ear (cochlea). I know of two cases like this in Tibbies. But according to a Norwegian canine medical book called: ”Hund, Avl og Helse” (Dog, Breeding and Health), written and published by the Association for Veterinary Practise on Small Animals, there are no hereditary defects tied into this gene, but instead to the M-gene, which in double doses can cause deafness and sometimes even blindness and sterility. I have not been able to find out which source is correct. Its great isnt it ? Its one of the things I love most about breeding dogs - there is always something new to learn, research one thing and more things to challenge you turn up. It constantly changes as more studies and more knowledge is added in and even more exciting when you step outside just one discipline and watch how experts in other fields have different theories.

Some of the info from that website is under review. For as long as I can remember its been accepted that the piebald / white spotting gene are responsible for causing deafness but there is a fair bit of new work being done including that of Professor Clare Wade from Sydney Uni and a couple of others world wide have done a lot of work on identifying the deafness gene which as it turns out may not caused as simple as it was thought - there is no doubt that deafness is more prevalent in dogs with more white but this may not be the whole story and may explain why some breeds with these genes are affected and others are not .Common belief is that they also thought it was something to do with lack of pigment in ear drum but it turns out it the deafness, which usually develops in the first few weeks after birth while the ear canal is still closed, usually results from the degeneration of part of the blood supply to the cochlea (the stria vascularis). The nerve cells of the cochlea subsequently die and permanent deafness results. The cause of the vascular degeneration is not known, but appears to be associated with the absence of pigment producing cells (melanocytes) in the blood vessels. All of the function of these cells are not known, but one role is to maintain high potassium concentrations in the fluid (endolymph) surrounding the hair cells of the cochlea; these pigment cells are critical for survival of the stria. So it may be caused by a multi gene or the presence of two different autosomal recessive deafness genes, or a syndrome with incomplete penetrance. In some breeds it may be linked to genes which give different pigments and patterns but it explains why not all dalmations and not all white boxers are deaf - why some breeds with recognised potential problem genes such as the piebald are affected and others not. When it comes to genetics its liquid and often not even the experts agree. There is no evidence or even a hint that parti poodles are deaf more than any other poodles. Deafness is a potential issue in the poodle breed but its thought to be more about breeding them with narrow ear canals but that too may turn out to be the blood supply/potassium thing too when they start looking for that as its a new concept. Beagles also have the piebald gene and the Irish gene and whilst deafness is listed as an issue in the breed Ive never met a deaf beagle in 40 odd years. Hopefully there will be a DNA test soon to identify a dog with the deafness gene. Oh and there is no longer a concern that partis will corrupt the entire breed because there is a DNA test available now in poodles for the MITF [the piebald gene]anyway.

the mini foxies have a slightly different breed standard and a big part of the angst when the tenterfield was recognised was the breed standard which the mini foxies had for decades was altered and they were not allowed the name so there was some nasty stuff and a split - the major difference in the breed standard from memory was something about the shape of the foot. Anyway the Mini Foxie club has their own code of ethics and they police their members so if you have a complaint against one of their breeders it would be best to go to them. Just because they are not under the ANKC doesnt mean they dont have ethicial standards on their members and strict registry requirements or that you have no where to go if one of their members has done the wrong thing.

because the country of origin say so. Ah, the 'just because' reason. My link As evidenced by numerous paintings and drawings from the 1700s and 1800's, as well as historical documentation in Emily Cain's Poodle History Project, the parti color was once common in Poodles; however, sometime around the turn of the 20th century, Poodle clubs in England and the United States chose to prohibit all but solid-colored Poodles in the conformation ring. As there is no written rationale given for this decree, it is reasonable to believe that it was done simply at the whim of those in power at the time. Looks like JulesP was right on the money. Yep.

Thats about it My link As evidenced by numerous paintings and drawings from the 1700s and 1800's, as well as historical documentation in Emily Cain's Poodle History Project, the parti color was once common in Poodles; however, sometime around the turn of the 20th century, Poodle clubs in England and the United States chose to prohibit all but solid-colored Poodles in the conformation ring. As there is no written rationale given for this decree, it is reasonable to believe that it was done simply at the whim of those in power at the time.

because the country of origin say so.

the current regs with the ANKC is that dogs with non recognised colours are placed on the limited register - in other words not to be used for breeding - not because it causes health issues etc though some may but because they don't agree with breeding with a dog with a fault. You have more chance of getting the ANKC to reverse the regs for not allowing non recognised colours on the main registry than you have of getting the ANKC to amend a breed standard if the amendment hasn't come through country of origin. Chances of either happening - remote.

the ONLY way a standard can be amended is via the country of origin - ANKC have an agreement that they will not change the standard unless it comes through the original founder country.

Actually as it turned out they were not even ANKC limited registered dogs - too bad it cant be discussed here though as its not the whole story.

Sooner or later surely to God someone has to work out that the rest of the world can see what is being said here and someone has to work out that this crap is doing rescue nothing but damage. If you dont like what has been said report it and keep your rubbish private. this whole entire thread does nothing more than publicly expose everything that stinks in the rescue world How does any of this stop one dog from suffering Get a grip.

I can see a photo of a box of drugs - but cant see any invoice and if its a vet only prescription drug and she could buy it from a company how is this possible?

If they cant justify why some are able to work with them and some are not then its justifiable if those kept out threaten legals action. Without written criteria, written agreements, written explanations as to why they dont accept them the whole system is open to corruption. It means if someone is prepared to take em out for lunch or sleep with them or if someone turns up with a vexatious accusation or gossip even the goal posts could change.Council leave themselves wide open to accusations and they have to either allow everyone with a 16 D have a go or be able to say out loud why one group is not.

Try proving that and until anyone can she should get the benefit of the doubt.

So are you saying the drugs were not dispensed by a vet? How else could she have gotten them?

Not via the media Plan B the media is a good idea if its well thought out and used effectively but there is much to loose here if it gives off any impression that there is a risk in taking rescue dog - again if this is a potential tool it needs to fit in with a strategy plan. . and then MN would just threaten to sue for defamation. Only if you go after MN or pound rounds and there isnt any need to in order to achieve change.

Nor is it illegal in NSW to have on the premises or to use veterinary prescription drugs prescribed by and supplied by a qualified veterinarian. In some states only a vet can administer them but in NSW there is no such restriction until it gets over S4 from memory. My link

also re shock collars - in NSW Section 13 and Schedule 1 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 and Schedule 1 make the use of electric dog collars illegal. One exception to this rule is electric collars associated with canine invisible boundaries. These are not illegal provided the canine invisible boundary is used to confine dogs, but only used inside a fence through which dogs cannot pass and that is not less than 1.5 metres high. However it is not illegal to own them or sell them.

Its hard to cover it all when every state is different and nothing is ever as simple as it first appears. You have to cover Department of local government, companion animals acts, prevention of cruelty to animals act and planning laws.

State government. But which department? department of Local government

Not via the media Plan B nic I cant send you a PM was attempting to remind you of that other place for discussion on this we spoke about today.

Not via the media Plan B the media is a good idea if its well thought out and used effectively but there is much to loose here if it gives off any impression that there is a risk in taking rescue dog - again if this is a potential tool it needs to fit in with a strategy plan. .

State government.

Um not sure what you mean by what is wrong with us all but it appears to me that you are agreeing with us anyway. Possibly some sarcasm there? Yep it took me a while but I get it now - thanks

When you take them into kennels but what about when they go straight to a home You have to prove first they were using them.

Um not sure what you mean by what is wrong with us all but it appears to me that you are agreeing with us anyway.