This is a placeholder text
Group text
by luvdemdogs on 15 March 2009 - 22:03
arrrgggghhhhh!!
What is wrong with the notion that a color ought not be a fault? It's a ridiculous notion when structure and temperaent ought to be the criteria?
Whoever dictates the notion that any color should be a fault ought to be re-educated - unless of course, the color comes with some other recessive gene that effects the health or longevity of the animal.
If they're good dogs, with good structure and good temperament and good health - then the dogs should be bred and the colors should proliferate.
What is wrong with the notion that a color ought not be a fault? It's a ridiculous notion when structure and temperaent ought to be the criteria?
Whoever dictates the notion that any color should be a fault ought to be re-educated - unless of course, the color comes with some other recessive gene that effects the health or longevity of the animal.
If they're good dogs, with good structure and good temperament and good health - then the dogs should be bred and the colors should proliferate.
by Xeph on 16 March 2009 - 05:03
Talk to Max about the blues and livers then luv
You don't even give a reason as to WHY they should be bred other than "OMG PREETAY COLUR!!!"
You don't even give a reason as to WHY they should be bred other than "OMG PREETAY COLUR!!!"
by mahon on 16 March 2009 - 15:03
I hope we never get to the point that we breed German Shepherds just for color ! That would surely be a kick in the head to the breed as a whole. Not to say that they do not have people doing already. But the vast majority are actually trying to breed quality from head to tail. Inside and out. Let's keep the hope that we can breed dogs that have the whole package. Breeding for only color or size or hair lenght or any other single trait is simple minded in my opinion. And should always be avoided.
Just my thoughts, mahon
Just my thoughts, mahon
by 4pack on 16 March 2009 - 15:03
arrrgggghhhhh!!
What is wrong with the notion that a color ought not be a fault? It's a ridiculous notion when structure and temperaent ought to be the criteria?
Whoever dictates the notion that any color should be a fault ought to be re-educated - unless of course, the color comes with some other recessive gene that effects the health or longevity of the animal.
If they're good dogs, with good structure and good temperament and good health - then the dogs should be bred and the colors should proliferate.
You make it sound as if every dog needs to be in the gene pool. There are plenty enough acceptable dogs within the standard that don't get the chance to throw their genes in the pool. Why we would want more dogs outside of the standard baffles me? Re-educate? Read the standard, the dogs wouldn't be GSD if we didn't follow a standard. If everyone just made up their own rules about breeding, the dogs would no longer be recognizable. It's bad enough temperament has already been influenced by those who think the breed shold be a rug warmer and not a working dog but to throw color to the wind? What next, floppy ears are OK if the dog can work?
Floppy ears are fine in the sense that the dog can still perform it's duties. Plenty of Police dogs are far from pretty but do they "need" to be bred because they work well? I don't think so, there are enough dogs that still exist within the standard.
How anyone can say "this or any pup NEEDS to be bred" from a picture at this age is a nutcase!
What is wrong with the notion that a color ought not be a fault? It's a ridiculous notion when structure and temperaent ought to be the criteria?
Whoever dictates the notion that any color should be a fault ought to be re-educated - unless of course, the color comes with some other recessive gene that effects the health or longevity of the animal.
If they're good dogs, with good structure and good temperament and good health - then the dogs should be bred and the colors should proliferate.
You make it sound as if every dog needs to be in the gene pool. There are plenty enough acceptable dogs within the standard that don't get the chance to throw their genes in the pool. Why we would want more dogs outside of the standard baffles me? Re-educate? Read the standard, the dogs wouldn't be GSD if we didn't follow a standard. If everyone just made up their own rules about breeding, the dogs would no longer be recognizable. It's bad enough temperament has already been influenced by those who think the breed shold be a rug warmer and not a working dog but to throw color to the wind? What next, floppy ears are OK if the dog can work?
Floppy ears are fine in the sense that the dog can still perform it's duties. Plenty of Police dogs are far from pretty but do they "need" to be bred because they work well? I don't think so, there are enough dogs that still exist within the standard.
How anyone can say "this or any pup NEEDS to be bred" from a picture at this age is a nutcase!
by Two Moons on 16 March 2009 - 15:03
JPTAGAS
by CrysBuck25 on 17 March 2009 - 05:03
Lovedemdogs...
"Whoever dictates the notion that any color should be a fault ought to be re-educated..."
Maybe we should dig up Herr von Stephanitz and re-educate him....He's the one who set the original standard.
If you don't like the standard of a breed, then it would be my suggestion that perhaps you should find another breed more to your liking. The standard is the standard, and while a lot of the roached-back, short-bodied dogs don't exactly fit, either, the simple fact is that this is simply a fad and eventually it will change. Like was stated earlier, there's no reason to intentionally breed dogs that exhibit major faults such as faulty colors, or faulty structure. There are plenty of faulty dogs already being produced. The breed doesn't need any more.
I'm not saying the faulty colors are ugly; quite the opposite, in fact. If their structure is good, and they are strong, healthy, gorgeous dogs, then wonderful. But they should no more be bred than a normal color dog with bad hips, ears, or weak temperament, or any other fault. Love them. Spoil them. Don't breed them.
By the way, those pups are so cute!!!
Crys
By the way, Two Moons, what does JPTAGAS mean? I've never seen it used, don't know what it means...
"Whoever dictates the notion that any color should be a fault ought to be re-educated..."
Maybe we should dig up Herr von Stephanitz and re-educate him....He's the one who set the original standard.
If you don't like the standard of a breed, then it would be my suggestion that perhaps you should find another breed more to your liking. The standard is the standard, and while a lot of the roached-back, short-bodied dogs don't exactly fit, either, the simple fact is that this is simply a fad and eventually it will change. Like was stated earlier, there's no reason to intentionally breed dogs that exhibit major faults such as faulty colors, or faulty structure. There are plenty of faulty dogs already being produced. The breed doesn't need any more.
I'm not saying the faulty colors are ugly; quite the opposite, in fact. If their structure is good, and they are strong, healthy, gorgeous dogs, then wonderful. But they should no more be bred than a normal color dog with bad hips, ears, or weak temperament, or any other fault. Love them. Spoil them. Don't breed them.
By the way, those pups are so cute!!!
Crys
By the way, Two Moons, what does JPTAGAS mean? I've never seen it used, don't know what it means...
by Breezy1 on 20 March 2009 - 20:03
My feelings on recessive dilute's is not very good. Not only nose and eyerims are liver, but also pads. Years ago livers didn't usually live past puppyhood, they would fade and pass. I have issue with not adhering to the desired coat colors, with the blue's that turn so dark later in life that you can't tell they are navy blue unless under the right lighting. So you can be fooled with blue's. I agree we must stick to our standard best as possible and stay honest and eithical in our breeding programs. A breeder somewhere in the mid-west had the first liver pup's that was known to live and not fade away and die. I say, scratch the breeding, never to repeat it, progeny from this breeding, even those not outwardly effected by color will carry the gene. It would be wrong to perpetuate the problem further and let it keep just going on and on. Breeding to honestly preserve the breed require's some really tuff decisions at times. Stand your ground and do the right thing Jan
by GSDXephyr on 20 March 2009 - 23:03
Have any new pictures? Especially one with a littermate to show the contrast if you have it? I'd love the chance to see them develop...
Heather
by Xeph on 21 March 2009 - 01:03
I wouldn't cull an entire litter just because of a simple recessive gene (long coats anybody)? Fine, don't repeat the breeding, but if the "normal" colored puppies are exceptional and good breeding material, there's no reason NOT to breed them. Especially if you're honest about them carrying liver.
Heck, if anything it could help solidify what dogs back in the pedigree DID carry liver (or blue!)
Heck, if anything it could help solidify what dogs back in the pedigree DID carry liver (or blue!)
by Uber Land on 21 March 2009 - 01:03
Breezy1, where did you get the info about liver pups fading and dieing off in the past?
I know people who have had livers pop up in their litters clear back to the 1940's and 50's and these dogs never died. Lance of Fran Ho produced blue, liver (tan) and whites. alot of the early dogs produced these colors and I have never heard of them dieing as young pups strictly based on their color.
I know people who have had livers pop up in their litters clear back to the 1940's and 50's and these dogs never died. Lance of Fran Ho produced blue, liver (tan) and whites. alot of the early dogs produced these colors and I have never heard of them dieing as young pups strictly based on their color.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
