Longcoats and breeding - Page 2

First of all I am against breeding longcoats because it is against the standard.  Not on ly that they do not have the proper coat to work--it is not an all weather coat.  Secondly when I was at the UKC show I got beat by a longcoat that had been trimmed--a lot--to try to not make it look so full.  I looked up the UKC standard and it is a serious fault.  I called them this morning and complained that the judge didn't know the standard very well and they told me to write them a letter--it has to have a signature so I couldn't just email it.  Not only that the dog had several structural faults--one being it's head, which was shaped like a Belgian head and exactly what it looked like was a cross between a GSD and a Belgian Sheepdog.  I know the standard and I know my boys' faults so it isn't sour grapes.  Also the guy who had the dog was telling the aussie people it was a black sable--it was a solid black with silver feathers--no more a black sable than I am going to the moon. 

Anyone who wants to breed a longcoat--JMO--cares nothing about the standard or the future of our breed..........

I have only one question about breeding longcoats.  Okay, you have a longcoat who should not be bred because they carry this serious fault.  But, this dog's littermates carry exactly the same gene so, if the siblings are bred to a mate carrying that same recessive gene, they will probably produce more longcoats, right?  They have the same chance of passing on the gene as does their longcoat sibling.  My question is, if these siblings are KNOWN to carry the same gene and are just as capable of producing longcoats, why are they breed worthy?  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  If the longcoat has no faults other that the long coat and won't produce more longcoats if not bred to a dog also carrying the recessive then they have no more chance of passing this serious fault as the littermates.  Am I right?

wrong.  A longcoat dog has a dominant long-coat gene.  He will definately pass the long-coat gene on to every puppy, even if the mate doesn't carry it - no puppies would be long-coat, but all puppies would carry it.  This in itself isn't a bad thing - normal-coated dogs that carry long-coat gene have a thicker coat that is desireable.  Dogs that don't carry any longcoat gene can be "dry coated" with very little undercoat and a very short thin coat - not as desireable even for breeding.

So a normal-coated dog that carries a longcoat, bred to another normal-coat that carries a long-coat gene, would produce probably a few long-coats, but more normal coats - some of which would carry long-coat gene and maybe one or two that would not carry it. 

In the end it's just the theory that one who cares about the breed should not breed a dog with a dominant fault - such as a long-coated dog, a white dog, a dog with serious structural faults, a dog with missing testicle, soft ears or other dominant genes that are certainly to be passed on to the offspring.

molly

So, this is what I don't get. People say they'll breed a LH as long as it can title and has good overall conformation and temperament.  These last three are obvious requirements for the breed, as well as the coat.  My question is this: Why conform to any of the breed standard if you're not going to conform to all of it? I mean, it's not like dinner menu where you can order ala carte, is it? Basically the whole point of a breed standard, as I understand it, is that it standardizes the consistancy of the breed. Or at least is designed to.

What would be the greater advantage for the breed of eroding the standard? Surely there is no dog that is so amazing that it should be bred with obvious and serious standard specific faults?

I'm not being accusing, but it just isn't logical to me for one to uphold a standard in one aspect and not in another. Defeats the whole point of having one.

Molly, thank you for the explanation, that clarifies things.

I think what people are missing is a Long Coat is NOT considered the same as a White or a dog with a serious fault. A Long Coat is a minor fault and is not banned as a White dog or pink nosed dog is, at least according to the AKC standard which I believe most of you sell your puppies under.

Eichenluft - Just curious, did you get long coats from the Klovensteener Forst dog you were breeding? Were there more coats then non coats or vise versa?  Her littermate whom I own is a coat and when I bred her she gave me 2 coats and 4 regular coats. Just "picking on you" because I know you had the sister to my coat.

Tina

"A longcoat dog has a dominant long-coat gene"

Actually the long stock  coat carries a double recessive "rr".  Bred to a dog that carries the "coat" factor you would get pups that were either long coats or who all carried the coat recessive. (rr, Rr).  Bred to a dog that carried no long coat recessive, there would be no "coated" pups, but all pups would carry the recessive gene for long stock coats. (Rr).  Bred to another long stock coat, you would have all long stock coated pups!

Xaviera v Klovensteener Forst Schh3,KKl-1 http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/330752.html - very nice female, not coated - yes I believe in 8 puppies one was coated.  The sire is also not coated but carries the coat recessive.  But the point is not if the siblings to the parents are coated - the siblings are not giving their genes to the puppies.  The parents are.  In this case both parents were normal-stock coated, both V in conformation, KKl-1 breed surveys, and both carried long-coat recessive.  Most pups are not coated, some inherited the  long-coat recessive, some not.  IMO the long-coat recessive is not a bad thing, it gives the dogs a very good thick, desireable coat.  Much different than breeding a long-coat, which I explained is a direct fault to the standard, one that eliminates that individual dog from being breed surveyed and therefore eligible to breed at all according to the SV standards - doesnt' mean the long-coats' normal-coated siblings would be under the same restrictions.

molly

I have never had a problem with my coat - and I have dragged her through the mud, through a nasty (nasty) pond, through the rain, the forest, the grass, the burrs, and through working at my club - and I really dont brush her unless she is shedding and I dont really need to wash her much either...the mess hasnt stuck to her anymore than it does to the shortcoated dogs in my club.  She is a long-stock coat....has the undercoat....but also those flurries around the ears.

~Cate