WoofnHoof Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 My pugs are lethal to chickens, they will run them down, kill and eat them. One has also run down and killed a rabbit. Those are some badass pugs you have there! I've never heard of a chi surviving in the wild so I would classify being a chi as a lethal condition lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) .. Edited February 1, 2013 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Steve, you are a bit of a heretic. I've always liked heretics. :) They are catalysts for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 This page explains a bit more about the use of the term lethal in dog matters: http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/03/lethal-semi-dominant-merle.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I like this one - http://www.lethalwhites.com/lethalwhite.html Edited February 1, 2013 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Just found this- http://www.chromadane.com/ColorPunnettSquaresDoc.htm Since Harlequin and Merle are thought? to be related- and Harl x Harl results in embryonic loss of any Homozygous Harlequin pups, it makes sense that they'd call these dogs "Lethal Whites" --Seems as though the name also got passed on to dogs that are Homozygous Merle which really doesn't make any sense as these dogs are alive and kicking albeit short sighted and hard of hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 That was a really interesting article, thank You Aloysha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 So we all agree no doubt about it some genes in some breeds cause health problems and they should not be be bred where they are able to double up and create the problems. Lethal, lethal white, white spotting, piebald etc etc its still the same result but some colours in some breeds have been kept out of the gene pool without any evidence that they cause health problems in that breed. Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 So we all agree no doubt about it some genes in some breeds cause health problems and they should not be be bred where they are able to double up and create the problems. Lethal, lethal white, white spotting, piebald etc etc its still the same result but some colours in some breeds have been kept out of the gene pool without any evidence that they cause health problems in that breed. Easy. Yep pretty straightforward. It would be easy enough to prevent double ups with ethical breeding practices enforced by ruling anyway such as no coloured to coloured breedings, anyone found to be in breach (whether they are registering the progeny or not) should be kicked out of the club for practices that are detrimental to the breed. Mind you the fact that there are breeders pumping out crosses and not getting kicked out of the club for it doesn't give me a lot of faith in the ability of the club to take a firm stance on these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 So we all agree no doubt about it some genes in some breeds cause health problems and they should not be be bred where they are able to double up and create the problems. Lethal, lethal white, white spotting, piebald etc etc its still the same result but some colours in some breeds have been kept out of the gene pool without any evidence that they cause health problems in that breed. Easy. Yep pretty straightforward. It would be easy enough to prevent double ups with ethical breeding practices enforced by ruling anyway such as no coloured to coloured breedings, anyone found to be in breach (whether they are registering the progeny or not) should be kicked out of the club for practices that are detrimental to the breed. Mind you the fact that there are breeders pumping out crosses and not getting kicked out of the club for it doesn't give me a lot of faith in the ability of the club to take a firm stance on these things. Well, just as knowledge of and understanding of the system is needed to know why some colours are not able to be accepted due to the system it takes the same understanding and knowledge of what the system is regarding the codes of ethics and crosses. That is probably a whole new topic so I wont enter it in too much detail here but The fact is I know of at least 15 members of Vicdogs who breed designer dogs ,purebred dogs which are not registered etc.Two are the biggest names in the business for commercial breeding and I have no doubt if I'm aware of this many that there must be many more! I know of several in NSW and half a dozen in Queensland as well. One who I was involved with a discussion and decision over yesterday is an accredited breeder . The system allows people to be members of the states CCs and not own a purebred dog, not own a registered purebred dog,breed cross breed dogs,sell dogs to pet shops,breed dogs without a breeders prefix and take advantage of the exemptions afforded members etc so why would they kick them out ? As I said that's another topic. You can breed non standard colours - you just cant register them on the main register or in the case of white boxers you cant register them on any register and the chances of the system changing from within is limited at best and would meet with much opposition and take another 100 or so years. Best hope is to ensure breeders are educated and hope that they really do care about what is best for the dogs they breed as well as what they consider to be best for the breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Sounds like not that much is different from the horse registries, the powerful ones play by their own rules and everyone else can (and do) kiss their ass. I agree though education as always is key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everythings Shiny Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I've got Smokey Kelpies (They are not fawn or blue, they are true Smokey), and they can't be registered due to their colour. I'm often getting Kelpie breeders argue with me on their colouring. I have had a blue kelpie - totally different colouring, I've also got two fawn kelpies - again different colouring. I'm lead to believe that the blue and the fawn was crossed to create the smokey colouring, my guys are approx 4th generation smokey. The smokey is more of an actual grey, which once you see the two side by side you can see the difference. Unfortunately due to my old girls age and health issues, her coat is not the best condition any more, but in her day, she was a beautiful strong grey colouring. I've never been interested in registering my guys as they are pets more than anything, but it frustrates me when people try to tell me what colour my dogs are. It can be very frustrating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) "Smokey" is not by any chance Weimaraner colour? This is a dilute version of liver, some call it lilac or isabella and yes, it is very much separate from blue and also fawn, not a cross thereof ETA: http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/dilutes.html Both liver and the dilution gene are recessive so for the dogs to breed true two dogs of this colour are bred together Edited February 1, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I've got Smokey Kelpies (They are not fawn or blue, they are true Smokey), and they can't be registered due to their colour. I'm often getting Kelpie breeders argue with me on their colouring. I have had a blue kelpie - totally different colouring, I've also got two fawn kelpies - again different colouring. I'm lead to believe that the blue and the fawn was crossed to create the smokey colouring, my guys are approx 4th generation smokey. The smokey is more of an actual grey, which once you see the two side by side you can see the difference. Unfortunately due to my old girls age and health issues, her coat is not the best condition any more, but in her day, she was a beautiful strong grey colouring. I've never been interested in registering my guys as they are pets more than anything, but it frustrates me when people try to tell me what colour my dogs are. It can be very frustrating! Have a read of the link I posted earlier a couple of times in this thread. It explains the genetics behind the colours. Crossing blue with fawn isn't how another colour is created. I can understand why you might be getting in arguments with other people about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everythings Shiny Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) "Smokey" is not by any chance Weimaraner colour? This is a dilute version of liver, some call it lilac or isabella and yes, it is very much separate from blue and also fawn, not a cross thereof ETA: http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/dilutes.html Both liver and the dilution gene are recessive so for the dogs to breed true two dogs of this colour are bred together Very similar colour to the smokey we have. I've got Smokey Kelpies (They are not fawn or blue, they are true Smokey), and they can't be registered due to their colour. I'm often getting Kelpie breeders argue with me on their colouring. I have had a blue kelpie - totally different colouring, I've also got two fawn kelpies - again different colouring. I'm lead to believe that the blue and the fawn was crossed to create the smokey colouring, my guys are approx 4th generation smokey. The smokey is more of an actual grey, which once you see the two side by side you can see the difference. Unfortunately due to my old girls age and health issues, her coat is not the best condition any more, but in her day, she was a beautiful strong grey colouring. I've never been interested in registering my guys as they are pets more than anything, but it frustrates me when people try to tell me what colour my dogs are. It can be very frustrating! Have a read of the link I posted earlier a couple of times in this thread. It explains the genetics behind the colours. Crossing blue with fawn isn't how another colour is created. I can understand why you might be getting in arguments with other people about it. I didn't mean that my belief was that the fawn crossed with blue made the colour, I've probably worded what I said slightly wrong. What I meant was that I've been told by some 'colour experts' that that is what they did back in the day to get the smokey colouring. I know that isn't the case, but that is the most common thing I get told when I tell people that the two are smokey's, not fawns. Regardless of what people say, I still believe that this smokey colouring is an actual colouring, not a fawn variant. I can trace back my two back to 4th generation of pure smokey dogs. I can't trace my guys any further due to the fact they are not ANKC recognised nor registered, it has taken a lot of leg work to get it that far back. The people I bought Diesal from sold him as a Smokey and tan. He is definitely not smokey, but he is fawn, his colouring is different from the two smokey's. It is similar, but definitely different. At a quick skim I couldn't find your link, but I will look closer when i have some free time. Edited February 2, 2013 by Everythings Shiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I've got Smokey Kelpies (They are not fawn or blue, they are true Smokey), and they can't be registered due to their colour. got a pic? (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everythings Shiny Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Not the best photo of Paige - this is her with her winter coat, so its not as deep grey as her summer one is. This is Jimmy And this is one of Paige's last pups: Edited February 2, 2013 by Everythings Shiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Could be Isabella? looks similar to this dog- http://www.k9-pines.com/germanshepherds_Avatar.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weasels Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 ES - given "red" has colour variations from chocolate (dark brown) through to very red, is it possible the smokeys are just a dilute version of a chocolate (rather than a red which gives a more obvious fawn colour)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janba Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Looks like a dilute red as has brown nose leather so bb dd. same colour genetics as gives lilac on border collies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now