Salukifan

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.

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them. For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here. But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here. I don't think I've expressed any opinion on what colours should be allowed in any breed. That is a matter for breed fanciers. What I said was "stick to the standard unless it is changed". Personally I think "colour immaterial" should remain the wording of Whippet breed standards because colour has no bearing on breed function. However, what I think as an individual is not what matters. The Americans breed some damn nice dogs - be nuts not to use American bloodlines judiciously in a breeding program.

Agree. But I'll still breed to our height and colour standard.

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them. For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here.

The AKC standard specifies eye colour as "Eyes to be dark brown to nearly black in color. " That is rare in a dilute.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability. That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets.

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it. If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification. Somewhere along the line, an individual is going to have to disagree with it to have it changed. Nobody has suggested that the reason why should not be considered, but the genetic health of the breed should also be considered, possibly above whatever reason may have been for the exclusion of a colour. They may disagree with it intellectualy but they'll have to adhere to it while breeding until it is changed. And they are going to have to convince an international community of their fellow breed fanciers to accomplish it. Posting about it on social media or importing an unrecognised colour and then wanting Main Register to breed from it is not the way these things happen. I get that a lot of folk don't think breed standards are important. All I can say to those folk is that generally the importance of a standard and its contents grows with breed knowledge. They are the iterative product of centuries of breed fancier input - you don't toss them aside because you've bred something outside one.

McMiffy: Send a quick email. Then lets get on the phone and have a chat. :)

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it. If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification.

It happens. I can think of breed standards that have been changed to include some colours but not others. But that is a process that is worked through. Lots of consultation and generally that includes overseas folks. Not someone deciding based on a gut instinct that they know better. 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. Read the bolded part of my response. I'm not arguing what you appear to suggest I am. Breed standards can and are changed to accomodate colours. I have no issue with it. However, until such time as any breed standard IS altered, then most of us will adhere to it. Colour me "lazy".

If both breeds have genes for a condition (such as PRA), you'll end up with it in the outcross. This is what the oodle farmers don't tell folk. If one breed has a condition, it may introduce it into a gene pool where it was unknown. CEA and MDR1 in Silken Windhounds is an example. Those two conditions are UNKNOWN in older sighthound breeds. However if the breed does not suffer from the condition and the outcross is carefully done, when backcrossed with unaffllicted individuals, you stand a chance of lowering the incidence in a breed. The LUA Dalmation outcross project is an example. As can be discerned from the article, it is not without controversy. I note that the breed used had physical characteristics in common with Dallies and genetic testing was used to verify results. It wasn't a case of "I'll put my X over my Y because I think I might get a handy dog from it".

Outofsight: Perhaps not, but many use them. You'd be surprised the lengths those irrelevant pedigree dog breeders will go to for stock. In my immediate circle of friends, three have imported dogs (multiple imports in some cases), more have imported semen and I've personally got feelers out for an import. Both dogs from the mating I have done have imports within two generations - one is the daughter of an import. Perhaps we move in different circles. My breeder friends are thoughtful, knowledgeable and responsible. They take breeding very seriously and invest heavily in their hobby. Crossbreeding may be perceived you to be the magic bullet for the ills of the pedigree dog world. I happen to think that careful breeding can produce the same result. You'll need some data to prove genetic drift from the rest of the world in any breed. The last Whippet results I saw suggested the USA was experiencing it, not here.

I think part of it is that veterinary diagnostics are improving and diagnosing more problems. However to return to your previous question. Can I ever see a point at which ANKC Whippet breeders seek approval for an outcrossing program to resolve a particular issue? With the population of available Whippets here and overseas, I'd have to say "no, unless a serious and widespread condition is diagnosed and an appropriate breed is identified to resolve it". Our breed is relatively young in pedigree terms - 150 years or there abouts. There's a mix of breeds in its ancestry and popularity brings genetic diversity. I have just done a mating where the COI is less than 1%. The ONLY way I could get it lower is to mate to another breed. So there is great potential to outcross to unrelated Whippets. To go to another breed, I'd need a serious answer for the "why". In other breeds, the issues are different. I leave it to those involved in those breeds to answer the question for themselves.

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.

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.

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 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.

Not with that fence height. It's too low IMO. You need higher fencing. Inside or outside dog? I'd not recommend either breed as an outside only pet. If you only want a medium sized dog, I think you'd find a greyhound too big.

Skyes are a LOT of terrier. They have teeth that would do justice to a German Shepherd and they may not start a fight but they'll finish it, ice it and put the little sprinkles on it. The size of the opposition won't slow them down at all. Probably not ideal as an urban dweller for a lot of owners.

I would prog test but if the dog is experienced, he'll tell you whether a third mating is a good idea.

As far as I know, only to indicate that the pup was conceived by AI.

Very sorry for your loss Sheridan. Run Free Mini :

Haha I concur! But, I think perhaps in Europe they are classed as a terrier, hence why the association? Nope, they are categorised among the Bichons in the Toy and Companion Group

The trouble is, Milbemax it is for Heartworm as well. I don't need to treat for heartworm :) It kills heart worm because of the way it works. There isn't an additional additive to treat heart worm specifically that I'm aware of. Edited to add Milbermax fact sheet. The same ingredient taking out the roundworms, hookworms and whipworms targets heart worm As I said in my other post, heartworm is now occurring in areas traditionally considered unaffected. Here's a press release about it. We have heavy frosts here and vets are seeing it.

Great story. The urge to yell MALTESE AREN'T BLOODY TERRIERS at the computer screen was strong.