asal

With a one in four chance of producing dilute colour alopecia in some breeds Sandra, I'd suggest its illegal in Victoria NOW! what a hoot. so now if you get a blue gene alopecia pup you can be charged????? I have had two or was it three with it?, and apart from looking like they had been poodle clipped where the coat is short, they had absolutely no skin or health issues. sooo some idiot is now made it illegal for a recessive gene to show its dial now? do this mind blowing genious realise you still will get it when ANY dog and its partner are NOT SHOWING it but carry it? get real! no politicians dont need to live in reality land do they they just make laws regardess of whether they are idiotic or not

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards." good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

Odd they dont mention its linked to the blue gene? reading that you would only think the fawn/lilac colours are affected?

know where your comming from there. alergies so bad the doc did tests, n to my horror get told im allergic to dog dander, cat dander, cattle and horse dander... like what on earth is dander....???? manure... well now i know, ive still all the offending critters. but wear a mask when cleaning up said dander. and as for clipping, i dont see why you dont clip him? having a double coat doesnt mean he cant be clipped, it just means it will take twice as long for the clippers to wend their way through the jungle. a friends samoyed was doing the same for their son. so instead off off with his head, it was off with his coat and no more problem. as for summer with out a heavy coat... happy doggie as for a pug its amazing how much hair will come off .. at least give it a try for both your sakes..

it is equally funny, that when the same faults pop up in ch to ch matings with NO dilute to dilute matings, the silence of blame is deafening... and it happens suprisingly often but those breeders are simply unfortunate, not unethical... i do have a sick sense of humour, the more i see of the human race the more illogical i see it is

Not in my book. If the creators of the Wei set out today, to create a great working dog and it just so happened that the best examples of their working dog were dilutes I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. Others no doubt think differently but if you are breeding dogs which are good at their intended function, healthy and have the correct temperament then what colour it is is irrelevant to me. It's when the colour comes first in this equation that it's unethical IMO. trouble with your thinking is there are a great many people who totally belive mating a dilute to a dilute is totally wrong and no reason can justify doing so. so even if the breeder said they were putting the best to the best regardless of colour, do you really think the 10 seconds experts would stop baying for their blood? i know i think not. look at the politicion asked to intercede in Judy Guard's behalf? not a finger will be raised to help her by that lot who drafted such a stupid law in the first place, let alone use half the brain they were born with and either rescind or alter what was obviously so easlily used to destroy an innocent person. but being animal related its another instance of guilty until proven innocent, and in her case she has already pleaded guilty so he or any of the others who have put her in this dreadful position will admit they got it soooooooo wrong. admit a mistake and fix it. why? cant they do it? so a breeder putting dilute to dilute? no reason on earth comming from their mouth will stop the puppy farming, and breeding for colour, catcalls

He would have been put on Limited Registration and sold to a suitable companion home. Once I decide where I stand on juvenile desexing, then this may also be done....but not at present. Teeth and jaw problems can be a real nuisance because in many cases, there isn't a lot that can be done until the 2nd teeth come in and the jaw settles. That's one of the reasons many breeders will not guarantee a mouth in a baby puppy show prospect...they can move so much during development and can LITERALLY become a bad bite overnight. EXACTLY. but your lucky you are not in nsw, I was hesitant to sell on MR for showing, told the person, there is no way you can accurately assssess an 8 week old pup and that the selection was entirly their choice, since i knew from expierence i have discovered the pet i sold has ended up the best instead of the "pick" I kept, can i go back to the pet buyer and say I made a mistake you have to give me back their pup and take the second grade, i made a mistake and this is the pet pup? interesting isnt it? I cant do that, i HAVE to live with my mistake and either keep mr or mrs second grade or rehome the now pet pup. yet the buyer can say, I think this pup is the quality i want, then accuse you of being unethical when the little bugger does the same thing to them as your pick did to you. its a totaly weird world... why cant the breeder demand an exchange when its the other way around????? fellow exhibitors told the lady with the dog she bought that MR is a guarantee of show quality and demand a return, even friends advised me take it back. so the buyer today takes no responsibility for their choices around here anyway, even in that case had already told the breeder they were expienced with how puppys can change and was prepared to accept it on that condition. once it stopped winning all bets were off. very different mindset now. the breeder is responsible regardless, so forseeing the future should be another talent any aspiring breeder needs to have among their accomplishments , one, who told the owner of the pup, mr is a guarantee of show quality, advised me to never sell a pup on mr unless its already has its adult teeth through. as you said . so right. I now understand why so few will mr now.

Not in my breed, allowing buffs or even the tricolours to be shown has never been brought into dicussion. The reddy orange coat colour of Tollers makes the breed and is essential to it's job. I would like to hope that if a buff ever stood foot in a show ring it would immediately be refused and asked to leave.......though they would never get that close anyway as no breeder would ever sell one on the MR. You are entitled to hold onto that opinion but could it be that perhaps you got so used to seeing reddy orange tollers that any other colour doesn't seem "real" or should I say perhaps does not appear to be purebred even though you know they are ??? Perhaps it is a case of being set in one's ways and becoming accustomed to a particular look. Are you saying that perhaps a buff is not able to hold its own in doing what is expected of it? If you knew anything at all about the breed standards you are talking about, you would know that Tollers were originally bred to resemble foxes as that is the colour that ducks are most attracted to when be lured in closer to shore. So no, the buff colour can not perform its original function. Thanks for explaining that, TO. I suppose that if you are into duck hunting then it is understandable that you are adamant in tollers retaining that colour. Me thinks duck hunting is a NO NO so therefore buff Tollers would be more than acceptable. Don't quite get what you mean in saying that ducks are attracted to foxes and can be lured closer to shore? um suicidal ducks maybe?

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.