Jump to content
Kazm

How can it be???

16 posts in this topic

Kazm   

 

I found an advertisement in the trading post for Merle tea cup schnauzers. From a breeder apparently.  Now I’ve owned schnauzers for over 20 years and know so much about them and 1, they come in 3 sizes - mini, standard and giant. And 2, they also come in 3 colours - salt/Pepper, Black / silver and black. Wtf. Why do people mess with breeds.? You have a  stunning, intelligent dog, why on earth do people want to mess with things. Just leave them as beautiful as they are. :mad 

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   

The trend to add Merle into breeds that never had it historically makes me so sad. It’s a sure bet someone will do double Merle at some point, maybe because they know no better or maybe it’s not blindingly obvious in one of the pair, and deformed puppies will result. Why create a risk that didn’t exist - oh yeah Merle us pretty and you can charge a lot for the novelty. And nobody can blame ‘breed standards’ for that mess.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogsfevr   

They come in 4 colours white .
The teacup Mini have been bred for many years on Kangaroo island & where sold via a Pet shop in Perth for many years .

We have yet to see one as there bred in parti colour,brown & other various colours.The ones in Oz have been imported from the US but not sure if they really took off,think the breeder now breeds Schnoodles as well.
 

 

In Russia at the Schnauzer club shows they do reconize other other colours ,i think its liver & liver /tan

Edited by Dogsfevr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see people from overseas referring to miniature shar pei. As if the breed doesn't already have enough flaws in it without adding short to it's genetics! I'm not sure it is a thing out here though as all the pei I have seen are around the same size. Maybe it is like the mini pig phenomenon - if you feed it less you will stunt its growth!

 

It's all about money. None of these people are improving their respective breeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tassie   

 

5 hours ago, Diva said:

The trend to add Merle into breeds that never had it historically makes me so sad. It’s a sure bet someone will do double Merle at some point, maybe because they know no better or maybe it’s not blindingly obvious in one of the pair, and deformed puppies will result. Why create a risk that didn’t exist - oh yeah Merle us pretty and you can charge a lot for the novelty. And nobody can blame ‘breed standards’ for that mess.

Aaaargh!  :banghead:  And I notice the other colours people have mentioned have all been solid colours, not merles.    That's a whole new barrel of potential trouble .. especially in the hands of the clueless or the moneygrubbers, who are not like to be doing full DNA profiles (if they're even possible) to rule out double merles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kazm   
8 hours ago, Dogsfevr said:

They come in 4 colours white .
The teacup Mini have been bred for many years on Kangaroo island & where sold via a Pet shop in Perth for many years .

We have yet to see one as there bred in parti colour,brown & other various colours.The ones in Oz have been imported from the US but not sure if they really took off,think the breeder now breeds Schnoodles as well.
 

 

In Russia at the Schnauzer club shows they do reconize other other colours ,i think its liver & liver /tan

Yeah. Sorry I did forget white. And yes I have noticed the breeder has parti colours too. I still think it’s just plain wrong. The schnauzer looks stunning in their main colourings. I personally would have no other. And I probably agree about the money grabbing. The pups have a very high price on their heads. Wrong wrong wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The high price is probably a very good thing.  If the price was low there would be greater market from wannabe backyard breeders looking for a flavour of the month product to churn out.  At least the high price on these pups keeps some limit on numbers.  And some limit on the people who like Diva said "don't know any better" who would be breeding-on if they could afford a pup.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Little Gifts said:

 

 

It's all about money. None of these people are improving their respective breeds.

Just out of interest, who in your estimation should be the arbitrator of that which improves a breed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BullBreedBoy said:

Just out of interest, who in your estimation should be the arbitrator of that which improves a breed?

The physical health of the dog should be more important than aesthetics or the monetary value placed on colour or the features of a breed. Just my opinion. I am not a breeder. But when you breed to improve looks (and in turn monetary value) at the expense of a dog being able to breathe properly or carry its body weight when it is an adult then I personally think that is not an improvement for the breed. Breeding to improve the inherent behaviours or traits of a dog who will have a job are also positive but I wouldn't support that if it was at the expense of a dog's health either.

 

As human beings we aim to build better versions of ourselves when we breed. We don't go around deliberately trying to breed ourselves to be smaller, frailer and with more genetic flaws. It happens by accident of course but often parents make hard choices about not passing on a genetic health issue once it is known. We don't even breed our food to be smaller or less than optimum (not even vegetables!). In nature the weak and unfit can be abandoned by their parents in favour of healthier offspring and most wont survive. So I'm not sure why we seem to have an interest in doing this with dogs? It's like, oh well, but at least it looks cute? Why doesn't their ability to have good health and no pain matter too?

 

The thing is it is possible to breed a physically robust AND aesthetically pleasing version of most breeds. Some people just choose not to worry about the former and it can be at the expense of a dogs health and wellbeing for their entire lives.

 

Just my opinion.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
6 hours ago, Little Gifts said:

The physical health of the dog should be more important than aesthetics or the monetary value placed on colour or the features of a breed. Just my opinion. I am not a breeder. But when you breed to improve looks (and in turn monetary value) at the expense of a dog being able to breathe properly or carry its body weight when it is an adult then I personally think that is not an improvement for the breed. Breeding to improve the inherent behaviours or traits of a dog who will have a job are also positive but I wouldn't support that if it was at the expense of a dog's health either.

 

As human beings we aim to build better versions of ourselves when we breed. We don't go around deliberately trying to breed ourselves to be smaller, frailer and with more genetic flaws. It happens by accident of course but often parents make hard choices about not passing on a genetic health issue once it is known. We don't even breed our food to be smaller or less than optimum (not even vegetables!). In nature the weak and unfit can be abandoned by their parents in favour of healthier offspring and most wont survive. So I'm not sure why we seem to have an interest in doing this with dogs? It's like, oh well, but at least it looks cute? Why doesn't their ability to have good health and no pain matter too?

 

The thing is it is possible to breed a physically robust AND aesthetically pleasing version of most breeds. Some people just choose not to worry about the former and it can be at the expense of a dogs health and wellbeing for their entire lives.

 

Just my opinion.....

well its not who should be the arbritrator, who IS AND HAS BEEN are the judges who put up the new u beaut "improved" version and the sheeple follow the lead. until its morphed so much people can post look what this breed looked like in 1950? then 1960, then 1970, 80 , 90 and 2010. may as well be two different breeds by then. I dont see that as improving I see it as morphing to a new shape and breed. so many examples to choose from, although in the case of the King Charles Spaniel, there are now two versions, the morphed end result of the original and the recreated version of what it used to be in the time of King Charles, now known as the Cavalier King Charles.  wonder if others will end up with two versions?  the original German Shepherd v the "modern bananna" springs to mind, but so many other too

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scratch   

I always get a bit of a tic whenever I hear the phrase ‘breeding only to improve the breed’. I ask myself why? Wouldn’t that be changing the breed from the dogs originally put forward as the foundation stock? I know that’s a pretty basic way of saying it, but I rather think it should be about understanding the breed standard in relation to what the breed founders were imagining, and maintaining that. 

The whole idea of ‘improving’ a breed can only mean changing it. 

Unfortunately now though, a lot of breeds could do with reverting back towards their original standard form, which could only be an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   

There are quite a few breeders these days who use or fit the term ‘preservation breeders’. They mostly have the very old breeds I find. They seek to maintain their breeds, not change them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diva said:

There are quite a few breeders these days who use or fit the term ‘preservation breeders’. They mostly have the very old breeds I find. They seek to maintain their breeds, not change them.

I like that term!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, asal said:

well its not who should be the arbritrator, who IS AND HAS BEEN are the judges who put up the new u beaut "improved" version and the sheeple follow the lead. until its morphed so much people can post look what this breed looked like in 1950? then 1960, then 1970, 80 , 90 and 2010. may as well be two different breeds by then. I dont see that as improving I see it as morphing to a new shape and breed. so many examples to choose from, although in the case of the King Charles Spaniel, there are now two versions, the morphed end result of the original and the recreated version of what it used to be in the time of King Charles, now known as the Cavalier King Charles.  wonder if others will end up with two versions?  the original German Shepherd v the "modern bananna" springs to mind, but so many other too

Agree 100%.  The lines between clear breed improvement (IE- breeding out health defects) and changing trends for shows seem very blurred to me, more so with particular breeds.  I have seen breeders argue black and blue regarding breed standards and breed preservation vs what's required to win shows.

 

I also like the term 'preservation breeder' but at the end of the day what's really important is the rearing of happy, healthy dogs.  The practice of breeding in particular traits or colours that  present as a risk to either health or happiness (EG Blue Staffies) is something we should all find concerning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

Having bred chihuahuas since 1978, horror of the blue and chocolate dogs had more to do with they didn't have blacknoses so many showies would not show them as the judges with the ignorance of genetics (n that was most of them in the eighties wouldn't place them because they ignored the sentence in the standard that mentioned dilute colours had dilute nose colour, ie: chocolate dog = chocolate nose. Blue. Dog = blue nose, the idiots were NEVER going to find either a blue or chocolate with a black nose, genetically impossible,) as for chocolate to chocolate = weakness. Well it does show weakness in their knowledge of genitics, but then old wives tales always took precedence over genetics.  I have never seen a health problem in either colour, although one in four blue dogs can develop what is known as blue gene alopecia when they lose their puppy coat, proving there is an elle present that when homozygous will cause blue gene alopecia, the Weimarmarinar (sorry can't remember spelling) breed has proven this elle can be eliminated if the will to do so is there.  all that entails in a blue chihuahua is some have short or hairless along the top of the tail and back in extreme cases very similar to a Mexican hairless, and no resulting health issues although being so short skin can get dry if out in too much sun, just as it would for a Mexican hairless,  although unlike the Mexican hairless the elle is not lethal when homozygous in fact only expressed when homozygous. as for chocolate, too much sun and colour fades quickly leaving pale tips to the coat, again Not, a health issue

 

As seen in labradors as well the golden dog carrying two chocolate or two blue genes can only express it on the nose leather and eye rims which instead of being black are either chocolate or blue instead

 

Also contrary to popular belief, coat colour genes are not linked to conformation. No matter how often it is said it is

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×