Greytmate

Anne, I remember the big thread we had here about pugs. I'm not convinced that brindle is supposed to be in the breed.

Even if it is in the breed, by making them a registrable colour, there will be a lot more of them in the breed. Because black hides brindle it will take test matings to know if a black is a carrier, and because of the way the gene works, many litters will be all brindle or all fawn. Brindle is a dominant gene, so all fawn dogs are already known not to carry brindle. The gene could be eliminated from the breed if people were prepared to do that, unlike a recessive gene which would be nearly impossible to eliminate without genetic testing.

Ok confused again :D If black hides brindle, how can it be dominant. Or do you mean dominant over fawn. Even so if black is dominant over brindle how can the gene be eliminated without genetic testing?

Think of it like coats of paint. :)

A dog can have a base colour of either black or red. Then it will have a top colour of brindle, sable, or black mask or clear. So you can have a dog with a base coat of black, with a top coat of black brindle stripes. The dog will just look black, you wont see the stripes at all. But they are there and can be passed on, and if that black is mated to a red, any red puppies will all inherit the brindle black stripes over their base coat of red. Which is the visible expression of brindle.

Genetic testing is a faster way to find out genetics than the old method of doing at least two generations of test matings to red dogs.

There is info about the brindle gene here . http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/index.htm

The site is outstanding because of the way it takes this complicated subject and translates it into easy language. Makes it so much easier to understand how the genes interact with each other, and lots of photos.

Where does the no extreme white in Dachshunds rule come from?

Also is there issue with the dilute colourings similar to the issues with dilute in the Staffords?

Here is a web page that Espinay provided in the poodle thread. http://www.one-dachs...althissues.html

It talks about health issues of different coat patterns. Because the breed contains merle, and the white can hide the merle, there are extra concerns in that breed, as well as the normal concerns about the deformities that can accompany lack of pigment.

Where does the no extreme white in Dachshunds rule come from?

Also is there issue with the dilute colourings similar to the issues with dilute in the Staffords?

Are there really more issues related to the dilute gene in staffords ? There are no health issues in blue staffords which dont also show in other staffords - is it true or a myth? Where is the science and how do we eliminate how selection may impact rather than colour - eg . If one breeder tests and selects only healthy dogs with knowledge of health issues in the pedigree and another only breeds for colour with little knowledge and without ensuring they don't compromise on health does that impact more than the colour?

I have a theory about dilute, but no evidence at all, but would be interested if anyone thinks this might be true. The theory comes from observing greyhound colours. Racing greyhounds are never bred for colour, so you see breeding combinations of all the different colours.

The only dilute greyhounds I have known to have immune system problems (like CBS do) , are ones that resulted from a double dilute mating. The blue dogs with at least one solid parent were a slightly deeper shade of blue and tended not to have skin problems. The dilutes bred from two dilute parents also tended to have a different nose texture. Coarser and drier and lighter in colour. So my theory is that there is a lot more going on with that dilute gene than we realise. It's not just simple mendolian inheritance squares.

As we all know, CBS (Common Blue Staffy) are bred dilute to dilute to dilute till the cows come home. How else could they keep pumping out litters full of 'rarities'?

After reading more about poodles, (thanks poodle people), it seems that poodle breeders try to avoid breeding dilute to dilute over successive generations, to avoid 'fading'. They breed back to the darker colours. Is that correct poodle people? It's all a bit confusing with no uniformity of colour name across breeds. Is 'fading' just a cosmetic thing, or are there skin problems with these dogs?

So, to answer your question Steve , yes. I think there is a problem with the dilution gene that doesn't affect dogs who have a non-dilute parents. How this works, I have no idea. Just based on my own casual observation.

But, the BCS syndrome also results in poorly conformed dogs, because those breeders always prioritise colour over conformation. So I think there are two reasons why the CBS syndrome happens.

Thanks for the info about being able to test for the piebald gene. That would certainly make it possible for a breeder to know what is in their lines. Are the tests expensive? It wouldn't be the people that desired parti poodles that would be doing most of the testing.

I don't know, but maybe light eye colour on an otherwise dark dog indicates that a dog might be carrying an undesirable recessive?

I would assume most of the old-time advice that sounds superstitious either is just a superstition, or would be about trying to guess how prepotent a dog might turn out to be.

the recently (to aus) recognised white miniature schnauzer

This is my young bitch Fria.

Are white schnauzers white because of lack of pigment, or because of a pale ee expression?

They have pigment and like a lot of white dogs, can have some biscuit colour to the top coat.

She's pretty. Good to know that they are fully pigmented.

Anne, I remember the big thread we had here about pugs. I'm not convinced that brindle is supposed to be in the breed.

Even if it is in the breed, by making them a registrable colour, there will be a lot more of them in the breed. Because black hides brindle it will take test matings to know if a black is a carrier, and because of the way the gene works, many litters will be all brindle or all fawn. Brindle is a dominant gene, so all fawn dogs are already known not to carry brindle. The gene could be eliminated from the breed if people were prepared to do that, unlike a recessive gene which would be nearly impossible to eliminate without genetic testing.

the recently (to aus) recognised white miniature schnauzer

This is my young bitch Fria.

Are white schnauzers white because of lack of pigment, or because of a pale ee expression?

Pomeranian Breeder and member of this forum has just bred a litter of Chocolate Poms. As far as I know quite rare almost unheard of in Australia thus far. Can't wait to how they grow.

I found a site that says chocolate was one of the 4 main colours a century back. Then got 'killed off' (whatever that means) in favour of orange in popularity. But says choc's coming back in the showring. Must have been a colour preference issue, not change in what's acceptable.

http://www.cantonpom...lates-are-sweet

It is rare to get a whole litter of chocolate in a breed like that. You would normally only get a 25% chance of a rare chocolate pup (bb) if you used non-chocolate parents (Bb x Bb) . Breeding chocolate to chocolate will guarantee a whole litter of chocolate, so if people are doing that, the colour won't stay very rare.

Parti might be rare in Poodles, but the gene behind the pattern is not rare in dogs. One of the things that gives the poodle breed its unique characteristics as a totally solid colour dog, is the rule that any lack of pigment is a fault and the dog can't be registered. This doesn't eliminate the gene from the breed (it has always been there), but it does mean that the gene is not so widespread. Solid colour dogs are generally fully solid and the odd parti or irish marked pup that is born is a very rare occurrence. The lack of pigment is a fault, but people find them attractive so they do get homes as pets.

If parti is allowed to be registered in poodles, I see two potential problems that might occur.

One is that the gene will become common, and as it is an incomplete dominance we will see the effects in solid dogs. Some will have lack of pigment in toes and chests. If they allow the parti pattern to be registered, will they also allow the many other possible expressions of the gene to be registered? Or will we lose these dogs from the genepool?

The other possible consequence might be that the bloodlines with the parti gene will be avoided by solid poodle breeders, and that the parti breeders will be on their own. This would mean essentially the parti poodle would be a separate breed. We might see the Common Blue Staffy Syndrome happen with parti poodles, because the unscrupulous will breed only for colour, guaranteeing them 100% parti pups. Continually breeding parti to parti carries a risk of deafness, as well as the loss of conformation we see in the CBS.

Backyarders are already doing this now, but giving registration approval for parti would give the breeders the credibility of official ANKC papers and allow the breeders to make claims of "champion bloodlines" and the like.

It is important to understand how the parti gene works. It isn't just a colour, it's a lack of pigment in a pattern.

Here is a website with good current information about colour genetics in dogs. This page especially will help understand the parti gene and its possible effects. http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/white.htm

This page is from a really good website that explains the genetics behind the parti pattern for anyone that missed the links in the deleted thread.

White S Series

Don't worry you can also be disqualified for not enough hair in the right places but a shocking front, over angulated rear or giraffe neck is liable to see you win a ribbon. If your show prospect has said spot on chest you simply dye it and then act surprised when they throw mismarked puppies.

Well if they allow parti, but a white chested solid is still classed as a fault, a lot more people will be resorting to hair dye. Maybe both faults should be allowed to be registered?

It is only a fault because when the standard was written they only allowed solid colours. There is no health reason. There are dogs being shown and bred with true faults (eg overjoyed, bad hips etc).

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.

It seems like it was a whim. But I would wonder if the whim was for all poodles to be solidly coloured with no loss of pigmentation, rather than just a whim to get rid of the parti dogs. If encouragement was given for this gene to increase in the poodle population, would it mean that solid dogs would start to appear with white chest patches and toes? Maybe the motivation is to stop this happening as much as it is to stop the attractive parti pattern happening.

Parti isn't just a colour, it's a gene that would be carried by solid dogs too. So by deciding to accept parti, they decide to accept something that might affect all poodles (or divide the breed) If may have been decided on a whim, but it shouldn't be undecided without understanding what all possible consequences might be.

My take on it is... the op should have taken notes of lines known to carry the "parti" gene and rally up others who also like the gene and either create another registry or lobby for the dogs with that colouring to be accepted eventually into the ANKC registry.

That would have been a more ethical approach. But doing that doesn't give you a guaranteed supply of parti pups to sell. You wonder what the real motivation is.

Outside of the breeding aspect of the previous topic, which I didn't read at all, why can't parti poodles be registered? Is it a health thing? Some reason why a parti poodle wouldn't be allowed to do the job for which the poodle was originally bred? Or is it just one of those irritatingly stupid no reason for it ANKC things?

Nobody in the last thread came up with a definitive reason why partis were unable to be registered. But there are a few reasons some people put forward as to why it might be undesirable or how a change of registration rules would affect the whole breed.

There is nothing wrong with a parti dog. But if you change the standard required for registration, you risk changing the whole breed, or you risk a separation in the breed.

Read this thread and hoping for you a good outcome. I too had a rescue that ate through car seats, couch, walls scratched at doors till his nails bled and architraves. He had been abused relentlessly in his former home and was just a perfectly loyal companion (excelled at obedience work)but alas he couldnt be left alone. We contained him in a small area like his own personal panic room so he couldnt injure himself. Alas it still causes me pain to this day that one day he freaked out chewed through a window lock & we never did find him.

Owning him was a real emotional rollercoaster. I can only add that I feel for you.

That is very sad.

Whatever you decide to do, set a time limit now. This has gone on for years and is ruining your life.

If the problem has not been solved or considerably improved by the date you set, then it's kindest to say enough's enough. The problem has worsened over time, if you allow it to continue to deteriorate you risk her fatally injuring herself.

Nobody can promise you that this dog can be improved, but you do have the power to ensure she will never suffer again.

I would keep looking.

A pet quality dog should have sound temperament with sound conformation. A prospective show pup should have sound temperament with sound and correct conformation without cosmetic faults.

and just what should a breeder do with any that aren't born with perfect conformation??

No such thing as perfect.

A dog that does not have sound conformation should not be sold as a pet at all. It is a 'faulty product' that should not be on the market.

It depends on the fault as to the best course of action for the breeder, some things are 'wait and see'. Then when the pup matures they can be reassessed. Some serious faults mean that sadly the dog must be put to sleep.

Very hard approach comparing a puppy with faulty goods, mine are members of my family. I don't think many breeders have bred 100% sound puppies and having them pts because they are not perfect isn't something I could ever do unless they were in pain. In the end all we can do is the appropriate health testing and the rest is in the lap of the Gods. There is a home for most puppies, even the special ones and it is just a matter of waiting for the right home to come along.

It isn't a hard approach, it is how the consumer laws work. A pet buyer is entitled to buy a sound, healthy puppy free of obvious and serious faults. This puppy has faults, and those faults may lead to problems.

Nobody is suggesting that puppies should be put to sleep if not perfect. I said there is no such thing as perfect.

I'm not sure if you missed my explanation of sound conformation.

By sound conformation, I mean one that is healthy enough so that the dog can live at least ten years (hopefully longer) pain free. A dog that is slightly over-sized or undersized, or who has a boof head, can still be sound enough to be pet quality.

There are plenty of breeders around who breed litters of sound, healthy pups, even if they are not all show quality.

A breeder can do a lot more than appropriate health testing, blaming the gods when things go wrong, and letting a pet owner take all the risk. You may have missed my suggested solution.

this breeder could hold on to and work with the timid puppy in the hope it will improve to the extent it can make somebody a good pet and have a happy life. At the same time the breeder could keep an eye on the pup's mouth, and if it doesn't start to improve they might be able to have some corrective surgery done to solve the problem. If the problems are fixed or resolve themselves over time, then the dog can be sold.

It just isn't fair on a new dog owner (let alone one that has paid $2K) to fall in love with a new pet puppy where there is an obvious risk that it may be prone to severe health or behaviour problems in future. This risk needs to be borne by the breeder, and can be minimised with good breeding practices.

I think that breeders should run on dogs with these sorts of faults and sort them out first, instead of selling them as pets to people who feel sorry for them. A bad mouth can sometimes turn into a serious problem. Pet buyers deserve sound, healthy dogs with good temperaments, and pet quality should never be used as a label for a dog with serious faults.

I would keep looking.

A pet quality dog should have sound temperament with sound conformation. A prospective show pup should have sound temperament with sound and correct conformation without cosmetic faults.

and just what should a breeder do with any that aren't born with perfect conformation??

No such thing as perfect.

A dog that does not have sound conformation should not be sold as a pet at all. It is a 'faulty product' that should not be on the market.

It depends on the fault as to the best course of action for the breeder, some things are 'wait and see'. Then when the pup matures they can be reassessed. Some serious faults mean that sadly the dog must be put to sleep.

Wow i would really hope a timid pup would not be PTS

I have a foster who is reactive, i decided the case wasnt bad enough to warrant PTS but i havent been confortable to rehome him. He has probably cost us $3000 in training, enclosures (cant be trusted alone with my pup) etc but thats what i took on when i decided to foster. I would hope breeders would see their responsibility to pups they cant rehome, and if they cant keep a pup with issues stop breeding.

I am not against breeders but i believe if you breed you rescue your own should they need it

Rescuing your own is less likely to be necessary if you don't place timid pups as pets in the first place.

Just like you are doing with your foster dog, this breeder could hold on to and work with the timid puppy in the hope it will improve to the extent it can make somebody a good pet and have a happy life. At the same time the breeder could keep an eye on the pup's mouth, and if it doesn't start to improve they might be able to have some corrective surgery done to solve the problem. If the problems are fixed or resolve themselves over time, then the dog can be sold.

It just isn't fair on a new dog owner (let alone one that has paid $2K) to fall in love with a new pet puppy where there is an obvious risk that it may be prone to severe health or behaviour problems in future. This risk needs to be borne by the breeder, and can be minimised with good breeding practices.

A bad mouth can cause serious dental problems in a mature dog as years of wear grinds the lower canine teeth slowly into the upper palate. Wait and see.

By sound conformation, I mean one that is healthy enough so that the dog can live at least ten years (hopefully longer) pain free. A dog that is slightly over-sized or undersized, or who has a boof head, can still be sound enough to be pet quality.

I would keep looking.

A pet quality dog should have sound temperament with sound conformation. A prospective show pup should have sound temperament with sound and correct conformation without cosmetic faults.

and just what should a breeder do with any that aren't born with perfect conformation??

No such thing as perfect.

A dog that does not have sound conformation should not be sold as a pet at all. It is a 'faulty product' that should not be on the market.

It depends on the fault as to the best course of action for the breeder, some things are 'wait and see'. Then when the pup matures they can be reassessed. Some serious faults mean that sadly the dog must be put to sleep.

Wait what breed are we talking about so we can get a Picture of if this type of temprement fits the breed..

Assume that the pup is definitely showing timidness/nervousness. In what breed is that correct or desirable and who would want to own a dog like that?

Yes. Breeds can range from exuberant to aloof in their interactions with people. But being frightened is not in any standard, and it can have far-reaching consequences for the whole of the dog's life.

At that age it's probably all nature and not nurture. But if there are things in the breeder's home that have made a normal dog fearful of a child, then that is even more reason to steer clear. Baby puppies need a non-stressful environment to do their exploring and sleeping for their brains to develop properly.

You don't have to spend that much money to get a good pet quality dog, but if you are going to spend that much, you should be able to find a good pup. It's at the higher end of what most pet puppies would cost.

I would keep looking.

A pet quality dog should have sound temperament with sound conformation. A prospective show pup should have sound temperament with sound and correct conformation without cosmetic faults.

What is wrong with you all? It is perfectly reasonable to rehome a dog that is dog aggressive on a pound environment and a fence jumper... So long as the owner can be trusted to keep him or her indoors or in a very safe enclosure and that, my friends, is why reputable rescue groups carefully vet adoption applications and carry out home inspections before rehoming animals.

If you knew anything about rescue dogs, you would know that often the "dangerous" one in the pound is perfectly well-behaved at home. That the "perfectly behaved", "bomb-proof" dog in the pound often turns out to be a dog training nightmare after three weeks in foster care. Having said that, I rarely rescue such large, strong dogs as Am Staffs and thus can afford to be a little bit more blasé about it.

On another note, any dog of that height can easily jump a six four fence. Humans seem to think yards are safe enclosures for dogs WRONG your dog just hasn't wanted to escape enough to figure out how easy it is.

On yet another note, my parents' standard poodle has picked numerous fights with Am Staffs at the dog park, having never spent a day in the pound and having been otherwise perfectly well behaved, perfectly trained and thoroughly socialised... Most of those Am Staffs backed down and didn't rise to the bait, the few who did did so half-heartedly and both dogs stood down when their respective owners shouted for them to stop and put them back on leash. The whole bull breed discrimination thing is ridiculous... In past decades it has been Dobermanns, Rottweilers, German Shepherds etc. and at the end of the day, it is Standard Poodles who are the most naturally aggressive dogs... They're just not that popular and not within the price range of the douchebag bogans who think having a big, tough, scary, undesexed male dog is a smart idea. The kind of douchebag who dumps their dog at the pound and says it is a fence jumper because their fences are four feet tall in some areas and the dog was left by itself in the backyard for 99% of its life, literally dying of boredom. So taking temp notes from former owners is in my experience as clever as taking directions from a madman.

Sounds like a combination of luck and sticking to less physically powerful breeds that has kept you from disaster.

Dogs that act dangerously are more likely to be dangerous than dogs that have never acted dangerously. Dogs that have learned to climb fences have learned a terrible behaviour that means that they are more likely to escape again in future. It doesn't matter why, all that matters is that dogs being advertised as pets should fulfil that function and meet community standards. If a dog has to be kept in the same way that a dangerous dog needs to be kept, it isn't reasonable to advertise that dog for adoption as a pet.

Steve give me a few days. I know somebody who may be able to give me a lot more info about what is happening up here now and how it works.

I get what you mean Steve, I really do.AWL are subject to council inspections all the time here. It's not beyond possibility to require that the organisations adhere to best practice determined by a veterinary behaviorist.