teekay Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I was really enjoying the discussion on Parti poodles and the genetics behind colours and breeding. I honestly do not think it broke any rules. These poodles were not crossbreeds. We were discussing an ANKC recognised breed, albeit a mismark. Last I looked it was a civil discussion. Did it get nasty towards the end and I missed it? I understand it is a bit of a grey area because these poodles cannot actually be registered but the thread wasn't promoting them, it was discussing them. Maybe the title of the forum needs to be changed Australia's Pedigree Dog Forum because the dogs being discussed were 'pure breeds' just not registered. Maybe the wording of the rules should say 'Registered with the ANKC' rather than 'recognised by the ANKC' . It's a bit ambiguous. Not meaning to cause trouble just disappointed an interesting thread got deleted. And I know it's your Forum Troy and you can delete whatever you like I am not disputing that fact, just trying to be clear on the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Probably because the OP was intending to breed the unregistered poodles. Which is a forum no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Probably because the OP was intending to breed the unregistered poodles. Which is a forum no-no. This. I believe the purpose of joining/posting was to promote them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teekay Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 Yeah, you're probably right JulesP, but the I've just read the rules and IMO they could be clearer on the subject. Maybe there should be a rule stating No discussion of breeding non ANKC registered (or foreign equivalent) dogs because I can't see it actually says that, although regulars know anyway but for the newbies. Unless I'm mistaken and I just can't see it, perfectly possible :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I think the point was they can't be registered anywhere. The non ANKC registries are accepted here but not breeding dogs that can't be registered at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 This is what I couldn't quite work out. Whether parti poodles were registered in other countries. Someone posted something about it but I still didn't really get it. The sable border collies that I like in other countries (US & UK) are show champions. It is just here that they aren't supposed to be on the mains registry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepup Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) The AKC (US) breed standard says "Parti-colored dogs shall be disqualified. The coat of a parti-colored dog is not an even solid color at the skin but is of two or more colors." Edited January 27, 2013 by moosepup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frufru Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) They are registered and shown in UKC in the USA and also registered and shown in Germany so I think it is unfair that this topic was deleted when there are topics about coolies, mini foxies, and other breeds that are not ANKC registerable. JMO As others have said there was a very good discussion about colour genetics and the thread did not seem nasty as happens on many in this forum Edited January 27, 2013 by frufru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepup Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) They are registered and shown in UKC in the USA and also registered and shown in Germany so I think it is unfair that this topic was deleted when there are topics about coolies, mini foxies, and other breeds that are not ANKC registerable. JMO As others have said there was a very good discussion about colour genetics and the thread did not seem nasty as happens on many in this forum But they cannot be registered here at all (they don't have their own registry like working dogs or MFTs) and the OP was already or had planned to breed them. The forum doesn't promote breeding of non registerable dogs. Edited January 27, 2013 by moosepup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 They are registered and shown in UKC in the USA and also registered and shown in Germany so I think it is unfair that this topic was deleted when there are topics about coolies, mini foxies, and other breeds that are not ANKC registerable. JMO As others have said there was a very good discussion about colour genetics and the thread did not seem nasty as happens on many in this forum But coolies and mini foxies have their own registry, these poodles don't and that is the difference. If it was a discussion about breeds in other countries that can't be registered here I don't think it would be deleted. But the OP came here with her litter of puppies that cannot be registered anywhere in Australia. We wouldn't tolerate a BYBer doing the same, and these dogs unfortunately fall into the BYBer category now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeebie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I was really enjoying the discussion on the genetics behind colours and breeding. Maybe we need to start a topic just devoted to colours & genetics in pedigree dogs as it is a very interesting topic and is one that has implications for breeders as well as the general public, many of whom visit this site when searching for a quality pup of any breed. I do know someone who recently acquired a dog which is of great conformation and breeding from a top line, but when they came along to their first show with this dog were very disappointed when told by the judge that dog did not meet standard and he did not know how it managed to be given full registration. Dog has pink nails on one foot and some pink pigment in nose and white face. I am scratching head on how this dog slipped through as well but won't go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teekay Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 Hmmmm that has got me thinking. So did she just not see it or did she think the pigment would come in later. I presume it is the breeders decision whether a pup goes on main or limited register. Does anyone check that the pups adhere to the standard when they are put on the mains register? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The op was breeding unregisterable dogs- no different to that of a backyard breeder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayreovi Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The op was breeding unregisterable dogs- no different to that of a backyard breeder. Yes, I was actually surprised it lasted as long as it did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poodle Mum Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Hmmmm that has got me thinking. So did she just not see it or did she think the pigment would come in later. I presume it is the breeders decision whether a pup goes on main or limited register. Does anyone check that the pups adhere to the standard when they are put on the mains register? No!....unfortunately, but that would be a whole other topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeebie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 So did she just not see it or did she think the pigment would come in later. I presume it is the breeders decision whether a pup goes on main or limited register. Does anyone check that the pups adhere to the standard when they are put on the mains register? The dog in question was a BB and was 12 wks old when sold buyer was unaware that all black points were required and that pink pigment was not showable, I seriously doubt if this dog had black points and no pink it would have been sold It is 11months old now and still same if anything pink pigment has 'grown' with dog and disappointed owner is no longer showing dog and planning on having desexed in next couple weeks - such a shame as they were very enthusiastic about promoting breed and enjoying showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
becks Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 As I said on the other thread, the partis and phantoms can be registered in the UK and as we don't have any disqualifying faults, such a colour could be shown (although not likely to place as it has a non recognised colour) maybe we should dig up the old thread about unusual colours in breeds or just start a new one? i find it intersting to see golden flatcoats and red bostons and brown n white newfs etc and the genetics and breed history to go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosetta Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Ok I am confused now as to what can be discussed on this forum. I was enjoying the parti poodle thread too and remember thinking that it would be OK as they are purebred dogs. Is the OP considered a BYB then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepup Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) I think in terms of the forum that if you're breeding unregistered dogs (particularly dogs that can't be registered) then you are a BYB. Happy to be corrected, I'm just a dog lover not a breeder. :D Edited January 27, 2013 by moosepup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) The op was breeding unregisterable dogs- no different to that of a backyard breeder. Isn't it? The dogs would be acknowledged as "pure-breed" (ie bred pure to the standards of breed stabilisation), wouldn't they (missed the discussion). The breeder wants to register but can't because the ankc don't have a slot for them. Isn't a back-yard-breeder someone who is breeding cross-breeds and/or someone who is breeding pure-breeds but doesn't want to register them with ankc? Just because ankc doesn't have a box to put a particular pure breed of dog in, should the breeder be stigmatised with the label of byb in the general sense that byb is used? Perhaps the problem is that the term "byb" is used to describe two different things? An indiscriminate breeder of cross-breeds with no ambition to stabilise to a pure-breed, and a byb perhaps being the one who breeds pure-breeds but doesn't or can't register with ANKC, and that's why terminology gets so tangled and one is tarred with the same brush as the other? With all due respect to Troy, I tend to agree that if the rules are about what the ANKC permit, should the title of the forum be altered to reflect that, rather than have the title purport to embrace pure breeds of dogs. This of course would narrow things by precluding breeds formally recognised by other International organisations, though. Edited January 27, 2013 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts