asal

The creators of the Weimaraner started with a plan to breed a dog with specific traits which were useful to them. I honestly doubt they started with a plan to breed a grey dog THERE is the big difference. No one seems to know how dilute alopecia is come-by but if it is genetic then the Wei breeders obviously removed those dogs from the original gene pool pretty quickly. If it is an automatic result of having a dilute colour and not inherited as a separate trait then Weis would be affected, which apparently they aren't. actually there isnt a big difference, think about it. if the originators of the weimaraner today did this the screams of you cant breed dilute to dilute no matter how good it is at its job is UNETHICAL. would have stopped them in their tracks, who wants to be branded unethical.

how odd, my brothers first dog was a chocolate and tan chi. he died aged 16 with no cancers whatever and he was always outside as he just couldnt resist marking in the house. so mum gave him the boot, no more housedog for him

I gather inclusion of the LHW's in the breeding pool has assisted with that? pardon my dumbness, what is LHW's?

my interest was obviously the creaters of the weimarener have managed it so it is not impossible after all? someone somewhere during its creation stuck to the one colour or there would be blacks, blues and livers to be found. because they are this composition no blacks or livers could ever appear , the breedrs of them are so lucky they havnt been tarred as unethical because of the colour they are. are they not.

my question was if the founders of the Weimaraner could select for both, then surely others who do also like a particular colour should be able to do the same thing, since this breed has been created and selected for soundness. it can be done. almost every post ive seen has said to breed for dilute is to be unethical

i know a cavalier certainly not bred for colour, the breeder has outstanding show dogs, conformation first and foremost full stop, one puppy had severe immune issues from 3 months on, the only way it could have a normal coat without severe allergies was lifetime on low dose ivermectin. when the breeder was notified the owner was told "thats a sign of his high breeding" like what the? it was purchased for show and breeding, its horrified owner had it desexed, no high breeding is a substitute for sound health and allergy free

had a horse to the same thing, looked horrific vet said give her 12 phenergan, did and they were gone in an hour

thanks for the link "The same dilution gene that causes a black dog to become blue also causes a liver dog to become isabella, which is a pale greyish brown. Dilution and liver are both recessive and relatively rare, so isabella is a rarely seen colour. It is, however, the colour of the Weimaraner, and also occurs occasionally in a handful of other breeds (any of the breeds in the list above which carry liver will come in isabella, although if both liver and dilution are rare in the breed anyway then isabella dogs may be barely known or even never reported). An isabella dog will have the genotype bbdd (homozygous for liver, homozygous for dilution). " which begs the question. since Weimaraner is all dilute obviously blue gene alopecia can be selected out of a line, i for one have never seen an affected Weimaraner. which also proves breeding for blue does not automaticaly mean breeding for health and skin problems? is that right?

if u put two black dogs that carry chocolate, on average half the pups will be chocolate. sounds and acts like a recessive dilute to me? if you put a blue to a chocolate, neither carrying the other colour of the partner, what will you get? BLACK. again that sure looks like how recessive dilutes act? if the chocolate is added to golds it doesnt make the gold coat brown, it only dilutes black, so all they get is a chocolate nose. seen heaps of labradors with brown noses, again if it turnes black to brown, seems like dilute to me. blue does the same except the change is to blue. at least u dont get alopecia in chocolates... hurray Chocolate is a recessive but it is not a dilute. Dilute and recessive are different things. Chocolate can be diluted, to fawn/lilac. Chocolate and the dilute gene are on different locus. Chocolate is on the B locus and the dilute gene is on the D locus. This site explains it all pretty well - http://abnormality.purpleflowers.net/genetics/ thanks,, so blue can dilute chocolate to lilac? yet from what i have learned the progeny have to have two blue and two chocolate or lilac does not occur. this applies not just to dogs but also to cats from what i have seen with my friends himalayans or is there another that does it? i notice if you put a lilac to a black if it doesnt carry blue or chocolate all the pups will be black hence my assumption of it being a dilute same as blue.

Yes it does. It doesn't make it right. It still wouldn't see me encouraging someone with a dog with that issue to show it, ESPECIALLY in a highly competitive breed. I'd sure as hell not breed from it. :D errr where did i say it was right???? all i said was it happens and gave an example

or even a CH title from whats been seen in the past wasnt that why the "petrol Ch" saying came about? Only the most heartless of exhibitors/breeders would encourage someone to show a dog with severe conformation faults, that lacked type or had an obvious disqualifying fault. There is nothing more demoralising to a new exhibitor than to show a dog that does nothing but lose. In thie case of this breed, the chances of there being little or no competition at shows is negligible. They are the most popular of exhibits in Group 2 and I don't see that changing any time soon. Its not fun or a great learning experience to show a second rate dog. Yes, opinions vary but some faults would be agreed by all ringside as relegating a dog to that category. A championship is not guaranteed no matter how far you travel. Dogs get refused all the time. Sure you can escape the big competition but some breeds are at pretty much every show. have a friend who had been on a waiting list for a top quality male. wanted and adult to make sure it was exactly what she was paying for. the dog sold was an australian champion.. got it home, watched it move with her dogs and realised it had a major fault not in their dogs. when told the seller, was advised that all its other attributs outweighed its one problem and to stop fault judging, that as none of her males or bitches had it to simply put the daughters back to her males and the results should be great, was horrified. and so upset has resigned from their breed club and contemplating resigning as a registered breeder is so upset so it happens

if u put two black dogs that carry chocolate, on average half the pups will be chocolate. sounds and acts like a recessive dilute to me? if you put a blue to a chocolate, neither carrying the other colour of the partner, what will you get? BLACK. again that sure looks like how recessive dilutes act? if the chocolate is added to golds it doesnt make the gold coat brown, it only dilutes black, so all they get is a chocolate nose. seen heaps of labradors with brown noses, again if it turnes black to brown, seems like dilute to me. blue does the same except the change is to blue. at least u dont get alopecia in chocolates... hurray my vet gave that figure. some of the older vets seem pretty good at diagnosis without mega cost to learn the same result. for example my vet took one look and diagnosed blue gene alopecia, cost to me... zilch.. he was vaccinating some puppies n string always came along for the ride. seized by the rspca n 500 dollars later gets him back with the same diagnosis...like derrrr considering the vet who diagnosed him was head vet for rscpa Vic before Worthless arrived there, what a total waste of resources and unnecessary suffering to my dog, my horrified vet estimated they had subjected a 1.2 kg dog to a minimum of 22 needle insertions and tore his trachea to come to the same conclusion. is that incompetance or over servicing? recently a pup developed an abcess, cause unknown, no injouries could be found on the skin, antibiotics cleared up almost all the infection but a snort made both me and the vet suspicious there was a sinus infection still present so onto long acting antibiotic. I was happy to keep taking it to my vet till it got the all clear which was estimate could be months to ensure no possible recurrance, puppies owner this week decided to prefer to take to their vet, i was happy to pay all costs taking it to my vet so im a bit puzzled why they just HAD to get another opinion. especially since i just learned their vet decided to do a "total workup" xrays, blood test etc. all up bill 800 and guess what? same diagnosis and alls fine with the pup. but gee what a hole in the bank balance. love my vet

or even a CH title from whats been seen in the past wasnt that why the "petrol Ch" saying came about?

Been there done that too. In fact, going through it at the moment. My pick bitch was stolen. I'm increasingly reluctant to breed from her mother again. But it doesn't for one minute mean that I should breed from one of her siblings (all of whom are on LR with spey/neuter) because they are still only second best and I don't believe in settling for second best. I agree with that Ellz but my thoughts were more along the line of "What if the puppy that has been 'restricted' to 'Show Only and Not for Breeding' turns out as good or even better AND the line is under threat for whatever reasons. Under that situation it would be a pity not to be able to use him or for the Original Breeder to make that decision to change the amendment. I still don't agree. If I lose my line, then it's my doing. Given that I keep my picks for myself, even if another puppy is potentially super, if it is sold to a companion home, then it stays a companion UNLESS it has already been prearranged that after a certain period of time, if certain conditions are met, the registration will be upgraded. I've done this too. I really don't like the idea of giving a purchaser mixed messages by telling them that "yeah, the puppy is on LR or with a Show Only or Not For Breeding notation but if I feel like it, because I just happen to have lost my line, then I'll remove the notation and I'll breed from it.....but you can't". That would really leave a good taste in a purchasers mouth now wouldn't it? No, I'm sorry but after many disappointments and the unreal expectations of show people, I rarely, if ever, place puppies in show homes OTHER than my own! If a dog is SOOOOOO good that I can't bear to part with it, then it stays with me. I've sold quite a few amazing puppies (definite show prospects or even show winners) to companion homes because that is what I choose to do with them. I breed to keep and not to sell. agree with you there, i was once happy to let all go on mr and those lucky to find theirs was show quality could have a go and maybe become a breeder. once upon a time thats how it workd. now its unethical to sell on MR, unethical if its MR and automatically now suppose to be a guarantee mr means its good enough to make champ. I think that was the last one leaving here with MR now. ive joined the mob on that one now. like so many of you now the line stops here. and who can blame anyone for doing so now. the mindset makes it your only option,

NSW Canine Council. forget the year now. there was a drawing of a thermometer at the door with a red line going up to indicate how much money had been raised for the court costs. LOL depends on the pup n of course now the mindset if it cant win challeges enough to make champion, the breeder is unethical if they dont take the dog back and give a refund, on the advice of the rinside crowd thats why i have one back. soo how many can guarantee a 8 week pup wil still have scissor bite at 8 months? let alone not go out in size, type, whatever? i know from friends over the decades 1 in 4 is lucky to go on and grow into its puppy promise, n many's the ugly duckling that out swanned the baby swan. had one born just afte the new law, she looked a great kelpie, pity her ancestry wasnt kelpie. she was not going to be registered but when i went to cross her off gets told. no all pups must be registered now. but u can lr her. why on earth would i want the whole world to know this soo off type pup was bred by moi? i could hear the tongues wagging already. but was so annoyed by not being allowed to hide who bred her i main registered her and kept her as a pet. years later a judge spotted her and was in raptures??? like what the? the comment to me was you are looking at her one fault and ignoring all her virtues. so i bred a litter from her.. her son is STUNNING. soo although she would never have run a place at a show. she produced above and beyond my greatest expectations. breeding is weird n always will be.

your kidding arnt u? LR came in because the register was out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees after fighting Mrs Furber when she as an elected director asked to see the files. the excuse i was given was she was wasting staff time. dont know about you but I would have thought give her 3 staff full time and meals supplied while she read the files would have amounted to a fraction of the 800,000 n up they had to find money to cover. they offered life memberships for 500 and all sorts of things i forget now and of course the mandatory registration of every puppy born and as a sweetener to those like me who were horrified we had to paper pups we considered not of sufficent standard to have papers the ho so wonderfull LIMIT REGISTER. then they proceeded to do all in their power to limit how many pups a breeder can produce in the name of eliminating puppy farmers and again bemoning the ensueing drop in income.. so to compensate fees keep climbing and climbing geeu cant have it both ways. Thanks for that asal, that explains why the Miniature Poodle I bought as "Pet Only' in the late 1970's from a Registered Breeder who was also a sucessful Exhibitor came with a lovely parchment type "Pedigree" but nothing Official looking and the Schipperke I bought as a pet in the 1980's came on MR, which was nice for me as I went on to show (andtitle) her but decided against breeding as I had been lead to believe by the literature I had read that they were a "tailess breed" and couldn't see myself sending pups off to get tails docked at their base. PS. I think by the number of 'winks' BB is kidding. umm think your right, but hey maybe we all need reminding the other board directors sure can be bloody minded and not thinking of the best interests of members at times that case literally takes the cake doesnt it? i sure know i wasnt asked my opinon about wasting all that money in legal fees for what???????????? my belief was give her the key. what on earth made it worth wasting all that to prevent a fellow board member looking up whatever she might have wanted too. maybe im super dumb but i thought thats what they were elected to the board for. to oversee what went on and into the files?

your kidding arnt u? LR came in because the register was out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees after fighting Mrs Furber when she as an elected director asked to see the files. the excuse i was given was she was wasting staff time. dont know about you but I would have thought give her 3 staff full time and meals supplied while she read the files would have amounted to a fraction of the 800,000 n up they had to find money to cover. they offered life memberships for 500 and all sorts of things i forget now and of course the mandatory registration of every puppy born and as a sweetener to those like me who were horrified we had to paper pups we considered not of sufficent standard to have papers the ho so wonderfull LIMIT REGISTER. then they proceeded to do all in their power to limit how many pups a breeder can produce in the name of eliminating puppy farmers and again bemoning the ensueing drop in income.. so to compensate fees keep climbing and climbing geeu cant have it both ways.

sadly any mating has "the potential for disaster" no matter how unrelated those in the pedigree may be. maybe i should take a photo of one i saw recently. bottom jaw so small it looks like a canine shark. parents unrelated champions . genes do as they please. whats that saying? "man proposes, god disposes."

i know a few do that, no amend that, most i know do that, i also know two of em that now have no one or nowhere to go to get a pup from, when they lost the lines when their bitch in one case was desexed without their consent, (family argument) the other developed pymetra and the vet recommended she be desexed n none of their siblings were not already LR n desexed as part of the contract. burning all bridges can have its rammifications

hoo hes adorable, champion already. who needs a ribbon to assure you hes sssooooo cute. as for the "weak" dilution mind set. blue is a dilute, acting on black it comes out blue, acting on gold it comes out as, blue nose blue fawn coat, or blue nose blue fawn with blue tipping if it would have been a black tipped sable. chocolate is a dilute, acting on black it comes out chocolate, acting on gold it comes out either chocolate nose, gold coat, or chocolate nose gold with chocolate tipping if the dog is a sable insteadof the black normally expect. the frustating bit is approximately 1 in 4 can develop blue gene alopecia. although yes i know my vet does the hand rubbing when he see's any staffie n shar pei comming in the door regardless of colour skin problems seem rampant in many of them, one kennel in particular that he asks a new puppy buyer with dread in his voice, who bred it. told me almost 90 of theirs end up permanat clients. sooo skin problems are not just linked to colour with some. an remember 3 out of the 4 blues will NOT GET BLUE gene alopecia either. so its not all doom and gloom as well ive had 4 and they have had no problems with their skin, they just looked like they had been clipped along the back. no irritation or sores just short there, normal length everywhere else . my ones were chihuahua's, one guy i know has the cutest of all hes a blue and white particolour, white feet, big white collar and half tail and blaze on his face. so. loooon white hair and short blue hair. he looks like a mexican hairless except the body is definately chihuahua. n no he has no skin problems just looks weird.

I might be narrow minded but I am not naive enough to think that this has not and is not already happening...good grief!! Firstly I never called you narrow minded. Secondly at what point did I say I don't already think this is happening... that was my reason for stating ethical registered breeders in my posts. I agree with you that there are already dodgy breeders, I'm just saying that the people that are dodgy and not registered will just become registered. why on earth would they be that stupid? become registered and your traceable and the wolf pack of ethical's will be running rspca's lines hot putting in complaintsto get rid of em, at the very least embarrass the daylights out of em. been happening for years to those who have thought they were ethical discover they had annoyed someone in the club and discover the uniform at the door, so its sure going to happen to anyone else silly enough to join and be noticed surely? I know my family never bought a purebred dog ever, all came from petshops and all loved to bits all their lives. none of the cattledogs my dad had ever had a pedigree come with it, nor the german shepherds or my brothers border collie, it was only after i had my first job and wanted a registered pup that once came home with cc papers. n that was some 40 or more years ago now. AND im the only one stupid enough to have pedigree. n i come from a VERY BIG family. everyone else gets em from where? pet shops or signs on the edge of the road or word of mouth and not a pedigee in sight interesting that figure isnt it. 600,000 dogs a year n only 60,000 of em came from a registered breeder yet whos the bunnies being shot at? n whos the pretty stupid bunnies asking for more laws to shut down the breeders of the other 540,000 and getting eliminated instead? ethical they may think they are but smart enough to realise the law classes all breeders as unethical. n whos the only tracable ones? regd breeders. who show? registered breeders, who is facing 42 charges for showing a debarked doggie? only a registered breeder can end up in that net. n when will they finally figure the hunt includes if not totaly targets who? not too bright are they the ethicals after all

What a narrow minded view This is about animal welfare, including the health & responsibility for the puppies that are put out there. As a buyer I would prefer my puppy to come from someone who health tests, considers the genetics before breeding, provides advice & on going support if needed, raises their puppies well in good conditions no matter how many dogs they have or if they show. If its a show breeder who only breeds for themselves & to show, sells off the rest & keeps them in crap conditions I don't care if they aren't a puppy farm. I would not want a pup from them. Lucky the choice is not always from the 2 extremes. If someone has 2 litters a month, every month & over breeds the bitches obviously there is cause for concern, no matter what you class them as. actually its the likes of sharon that has sent the pedigree breeders down the road of destroying their own members, u fit their mould or else. and the canine councils are tending to go that way to be seen to be "doing the right thing" and the likes of sharon think they are safe from the witch hunt. soo when one of em is burned at the stake her once friends stand back in horror,, n let em burn. one less, one less, till theres no more. but its all for the "great good" n the ethicals still standing dont think they will be next. news for u. when you are next, your friends wont lift a finger in case attention turns to them. set the wheels in motion and they are rolling arnt they.. although the ethicals still think any they thought were ethical snared must have been unethical after all and hiding their evilness after all, so no chance of their mates lifting a finger to say, hey no this is wrong. judy guard surely has proven that? how much does it take for you "ethicals" to realise your way isnt the high way?

YOU hit the nail all right, education starts at school and thats were the generations need to be taught animal care and respect from kindi. all the laws in the world cant change human nature, some are the cruelst of all species n thats saying something, considering the thread on bitch fights, just look at the killer in america who has asked never to be released, although i did find his reasoning a little ironic, he took a guilty plea bargin to escape the death penalty then said if the other prisionrs dont kill him he will probably kill himself. if he didnt plea bargin the death penalty had been a cert? when people were closer to the land and livestock i think that training was much more widespread not millions of kids have never seen milk come from a cow, an egg come from a chook. still get this mental picture of a kid at sydney royal a few years ago, standing appalled watching a cow being milked and his loving mum, said see son thats where milk comes from. to a horrified squeal "THATS SOOO GROSS...." and he began throwing up

If every breeder did those things, the world would be a much better place. I in fact do almost all of these things and most of the breeders I know do too. However you do realize if all breeders only place their pups on desex agreement, then there are no new bloodlines for anyone, and that will quickly mean the end of dogs. So I do not think that to be an 'ethical' breeder, or 'for the world to be a better place', that all dog breeders should place all their pups on desex contract. I think that is a fatal idea for the future of dogs. Secondly and here is the one area I do differ with you. I do not believe that a bitch should only be bred once if you are doing your job as a breeder correctly. A quality bitch, especially one that throws a trait you are really after (such as consistent really good hips in a breed that does not have the best of hips for example) should not be limited to being used only once (edited grammer). Personally I would put that bitch to at least two different sires and keep at least one bitch pup or even a stud pup (If I really thought I had something special in the genetics) from each litter to possibly go forward with. In the end you may only use one of the combinations from the bitch, however you may use both and again diversify those breedings by using different sires with each. You need to be able to select and cull but not totally loose every line you work with in the process. Sometimes it is not until you see the grand pups that you really know what you have got. If you put all your eggs in one basket you will end up dumping baskets and changing baskets that you may never gain any control over what you are producing. Good breeders in my opinion never think they have a done deal, they are always looking to modify and refine their bloodlines. You can only do that when you have different dogs to select from. Again I would never put this sort of moral restriction on what I would call an 'ethical breeder. It is not in the best interest of future generations of the breed to deliberately inhibit diversity in the gene pool. Just my opinion. Totally agree, looking back 60 years, things have really changed and they have changed for the better. you made some good points but the last sentance in your other post sort of refudes the points before it. i am constantly amazed at the niavety of so many i read. 'HO i never breed mor than one/two litters. to breed more than one litter to the same sire is just puppy farmong" and so on. if those who say such things actually did some research just one mating can give thousands of possibilities of how each and ever pup could turn out. every pup is a new combination of the parents genes. read any genetics book, you need a minimum of 16 progeny to check for the existance or not of just one gene alone if you suspect the parents are carriers and any number of progeny under that number you darent think they are not carriers. sometimes there can be 100 and all clear, its happened. and here we are hoping the best genes of a coupe of hundred thousand possible combinations will match up and expect only the good ones will elect to be born of one?????????? litter. no hope no way. the best could be the first or the last of 100. I dont think there is a genetists in the world who would say number 6 will be the one to keep for example. yet dog breeders think they can actually do this with one or two litters? and have a ghost of a chance of genetic improvement at the same rate as some (obviously unethical) who actually breeds a few dozen and picks the best, and even worse lets other breeders access to a couple if not more of the best to use as well. doesnt happen anymore the way it used to back in the bad old days. more people then used to think helping each other was a good idea. unethical wasnt on the radar then. the picture painted is the picture of a rapidly shrinking genepool, or am standing at the wrong angle so the picture is out of alignment? Steve HELP!

its easy, some one somewhere decided solid colours are "better" for winning. n winning is where it counts in shows. for example, read the chihuahua standard, virtually anything goes and even says light colours acceptable but for decades no show breeder wortht their salt would keep to show a light coloured dog with light coloured nose's even though standard said light noses with light colours was permissable. not to those showing em.. i know i bought some stunners for a song because their breeders considered them not worth keeping. and so such colours can dissappear from a breed, as has with the bench kelpies well thats my take on it. anyone else disagree? frankly i love the black n tans, red n tans, silver n tans, blue and tans... yes i know many working kelpies even seen a cream n stunning n the sheep dont seem to find the colour range a problem either.. judges and show breeders are a totaly different kettle of fish.