This is a placeholder text
Group text
by wuzzup on 02 December 2008 - 15:12
Or may be even gray,to the untrained eye the dog does look gray and i have seen a few turn almost black..Sunic that's the exception to the rule.I could go back and find countless criticism from many breeders on many dogs and there kennels.I don't have the time to bother with it .kennel against kennel.bashing on top of bashing.Heck look at the fleserhiem site.that's the first one that comes to mind .I have more names of people who bash dogs to promote there own but why bother..it's easy to get into a pissing war and I'm out. Today at least !! Oh and if there selling there own puppies and you dare to mentoin another kennels pups well that a nasty thing in It's self..
by cledford on 02 December 2008 - 21:12
I would say that first, sure title the dog. Why not, the dog was bred as a working animal and as long as suitable for the stresses of protection, what is wrong with titling? Even if not cut out for protection, there are still OB and tracking titles. I can say that my blue easily has as much prey as any other showline dog I’ve ever seen and subjectively, seems a ton smarter and more compliant as well – he picks things up very quick. He’d be a joy to train in tracking and OB, although he is not cut out for protection. Is it just him or a blue trait? Don’t know, but since I’d hate to think he got the crap end of everything in the genetic lottery, I like to think he made out in the smarts department… Anyhow, he’s my wife’s dog and I’ve got a working line dog for sport – so he’s never done anything formal but pet OB, but every once in a while (typically when having an issue with my working dogs) I will “play around” with him on the same subject and am shocked at how quick he picks it up. I’ve also noticed he has a strong (almost border collie like) herding mentality. Since it isn’t present in either parent) I’m not sure where he got it, but it sure is noticeable. Just don't do it to breed. I say this from the breed standard perspective as well as the fact that the blues (from my experience) seem to be "Genetic trashcans" in that they don't seem to just get the gene for the color issue - they tend to turn up with other (again, in my experience, multiple…) problems as well. Therefore, to be fair to dog, go ahead and have elbows and hips checked as well and keep extra vigilant for other health related issues. FWIW, what is the difference between a blue & a grey and how frequent are grey coats? I thought they were all blues… -Calvin
by beetree on 02 December 2008 - 23:12
I also had a thought, 
that made me wonder, what if the standard took a pragmatic approach, like Sueincc more or less mentioned somewhere, about getting rules changed to accept Long Coats? If it was a jest, so sorry but it doesn't matter because the next question is:
Are there any unique benefits to having a blue color? That perhaps weren't apparent during the Capt.s' time?
by Christopher Smith on 02 December 2008 - 23:12
During the Capt.s' time the blue coat was OK.
by moondust on 03 December 2008 - 00:12
Blue and Gray are two separate colors .Check your AKC puppy papers you will see two separate boxes ,one for Blue one for Gray of course you will see the boxes for the other colores along with Marking.I believe the captain also mentions he was looking at the color Yellow to be within the dog . Although not Yellow on it's own but within the blending of the Colors . Have a good one all.Halo Is blue with out Raymond
by sueincc on 03 December 2008 - 08:12
No, I didn't say it in jest. I honestly think some of what's in the standard (like coat color) should be changed, I personally don't think coat color is important because it has nothing to do with structure, soundness or working ability.
Another benefit of allowing all colors would be unscrupulous breeders would have one less "unique" thing to make money off of.
Let's not muck up the waters by mixing up colors! Many refer to sables as gray dogs, whereas blues are a dilution of black. The two are unrelated.
by kitkat3478 on 03 December 2008 - 09:12
This has basicly been a very NICE thread. I don't breed for the blues, if that was my goal, I would not have bought a red and black Bullinger dog. My dog Blue is a very nice dog, and he has given me some real nice sables and solid blacks.
The fact (sueincc), that I stated about being distorted was Just that it was brought in about bad hips, one testicle and stuff like that. If I ever get another Blue, I would not want to keep it for breeding, IF ANYTHING, I would love to title a Blue dog, I mean love it.
Anytime I sold a blue dog, I did not claim them to be rare or unique, I stated to the person interested that Blue is a fault. I just wanted opinions how they felt about the working of a blue dog. Believe me, I've been here reading for years. I know EXACTLY what the majority here thinks about breeding them.
Anyway, I am very happy that everyone is in agreement that a Blue Dog Should be worked, and allowed in most peoples clubs.
by Mystere on 03 December 2008 - 15:12
by eichenluft on 03 December 2008 - 15:12
Agree with Mystere. Plus, it also appears the blue dog is a long-coat. Let's double up on faults for breeding to improve our breed, why don't we? Because we can? Not good.
molly
by wuzzup on 03 December 2008 - 16:12
The dog is not a long coat!!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top