PEDIGREE's of WELL know GSD's that carry the blue and liver gene - Page 2

Here you go, Veronica: Canto DID carry hemophilia. I've heard some of his pups bled to death when teething!

http://www.gsdhelpline.com/haemohist.htm

If you do a Google search, you will find many references to it, even though the breeder REFUSED TO ALLOW THE DOG TO BE TESTED!!

I think we are doing the breed a great disservice by trying to hide information like this, and by dissing those who try to bring it out into the light.

Sue-Ann - Very Good response

Sueinc - You hit the nail on the head re oleo being pissed off.  To borrow a quote from Sue-Ann " Having someone exploit that gene (already deemed as faulty) is what i have trouble with."  It seems oleos was confronted by me AND others on another thread about the fact the he/she chooses to deliberately breed for blues AND claims to have bred over 1000 GSDs in 17 years. To which I asked the question -how does one define a puppy mill. See the thread on Breeding gone wrong. It appears the truth stings so oleos is trying to lash out and make it appear that everyone is in his/her sewer.

It is quite obvious that oleos does not have a clue about the distinction between occasionaly producing an off color and responsibly placing them as kitkat's post suggests and the exploitation of a disqualifiable fault - usually under the banner of  "rare" ( tho please note I do not know of oleos using that word - its just that most other breeders of off colors do)

Thank you for the link, Sunsilver.  I will take some time to look at it.   Veronica

I will start with SUEINCC........what you see as pissed of is an up front value of simply, I loath stupidly." My original post started with something totally different and went into a bunch of BS brought on by VKFGSD.  Again in the post above she/he tried to quote what was NOT said even though  it was pointed out the truth. I have made a valid point and what I loath is the simple minds not taking the time to look it up.  They want to bash bad breeding but when a question is asked and a truth pointed out it is totally missed, and I would assume, so they do not have to face it.

Now VKFGSD....again you try and quote that I said I have BRED over a 1000 GSD's in 17 years. And to those's that really care about truth and clarity....don't take my word for it or my skill of cut and past, GO LOOK AT WHAT I SAID. And when I made the point you still are coming back with noting of truth. But I will past it AGAIN.......I told "britiny"...better go check your lines.......I have over 1000 GSD's out there with either MY name or KENNEL name on it.

When pointed out to poor mindless VKFGSD, that it includes the breeders that have my line, the stud dogs that have been bred to outside bitches, my own line, the puppies sold by other breeders with my line ect ect ect....all with my name or kennel name in it........the first 6 or 7 years I was breeding I used my given names, then in 1998, my kennel name when it was registered.

So again...do define puppy mill VKFGSD and HOW it even would remotely have anything to do with the dogs that have my name or kennel name in it?? You can't....because it makes no sense...again this is what is so upsetting, a person that is suppose to have intelligence and wants to put a word or comment in but can not put something valid or of fact. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense........I have yet to see anyone say you do. Now I know you will continue on this tread with things that have nothing to do with the thread....but seems that is the type of person you are.....you just don't know how to except facts and that will leave you lagging in life. To bad you did not have the courage to admit when you are wrong, then you would not have to have folks continually see how dumb you are.

So now to the real post. I posted this information, and I see it has been posted before, in hopes that some of you can be educated. I will not go and look back on names of whom said what, you know who you are, I will just make the facts and it will be up to you to seek the truth. It would seem that even with a fact listed it is not good enough, so it is obvious that you will not except what someone else brings to the table, so please be my guest and look for other avenues where you will find the same information, but it will be YOUR avenue to find and may find more clarity if you do it yourself.

What you all do not understand, and none will bother to prove me wrong with your own links and facts, is the blue gene, not color, is VERY common in over 70% of GSD's. I do not class them as rare and that pisses me off when I see breeders that do. They are NOT rare and that is the point I am trying to make. I will say it again as I did in the last post. There have been breeders I have known or have been told about, that will destroy any blue they may get in their litter. Their mistake is thinking the problem is now gone. If you all would go read the meaning of a recessive gene you will understand how it works. Blue is recessive. Meaning you have to have TWO parents that carry it to THROW that ACTUAL color to a puppy in that litter. Both parents can be black and tan, or any standard color and carry the gene and you will get at least ONE blue colored puppy....but what breeders do not understand is EVERY PUPPY BLUE OR NOT will carry the gene. So if they are only going to destroy the colored puppy, it is NOT taking

I am all for the breeding of blues and livers and whites IF the individual dogs are fantastically awesome in every way- healthy, long-lived, great conformation, and a working ability to die for.  Breeding them just because "no good dog is a bad color" is kind of ridiculous when one does not go out of one's way to define "good," insofar as justifying the breeding of a dog that is a DQ under the standard.  This goes for *ANY* breed of dog, not just GSDs.  And I happen to LOVE livers and blues.  Gorgeous dogs.  Will I have a liver of blue someday?  Yes I sure hope so!  But I will rescue one or buy it from a litter than happens to have off colors not because they're breeding for it, but because it happens.  I do not feel it is anything to be ashamed of, especially because GSD white/blue/liver doesn't affect health, but it is still not acceptable under the standard and should not be the core of one's program.

Oleo, you have a wonderful chance here to defend your program, why you breed blues.  What strikes me most about this thread is not that people are calling you out for breeding blues, but YOUR reaction.  Many breeders will defend themselves and yet remain polite and upstanding, something to be respected.  Your reaction to this and the other thread is very telling.  I have seen many people and breeders picked apart on this forum and others and there are those who explode into "recess behavior" like what is seen here and there are others who keep their cool and the discussion ends in disagreement, yet a very respectful one.  It's a shame this opportunity for respect has been squandered.

Finally, I am no breeder, but if someone were selling a GSD brood bitch for $500 *or less*, I think I would very quickly RUN AWAY from that dog in the opposite direction.  Very quickly.  There is often a very good reason why a brood bitch is $500, something that probably should never, ever be bred in the first place.  Exceptions happen, but this is a risk beyond a risk.

it is NOT taking care of the problem. They do not understand the way recessive works. MOST blue GSD"s come from standard colored parents, and it can not be taken out of the line, BECAUSE it is recessive.

My next point is whom decided it was a "FAULT"? It has been in the lines from day one, going back to the wolf. When the GSD was brought to America who was it that put a "breed" standard. Even now it is different then in Europe. It was not put there by the public, it was put there by a small comity. BUT the breed standard CHANGED in the 70's when a BLUE male GSD was kicking ass in the show ring. So a bunch of sore looser decided to get together and change the breed standard to out cast the blues from the show ring, then came the whites, then the long coats etc. Did any of you as the public get to have a say in this? I never. So again, it is a small group that makes up what a standard should be and it is 100% based on personal opinion. As well know, or should, there is a famous Quote by the founder himself....so why can he have the standard that no GOOD dog can be of BAD COLOR and it be OK then and not now? AGAIN because people are afraid of what they can not beat in this case.

My third point is the statistics that a dog of color has MORE defects then a dog of standard coat color. You show me 10 that do and I will show you 100 that don't. BUT I will do you one even better, you show me 100 standard coats with out any defects and I will show you 100 that DO.

I have owned many blues, all of which have never had any skin or eye or pad problems, nothing. I have owned more standard coated mind you and have a couple that have had skin problems due to allergies ect. People that do not agree with the blue want everyone to believe the blues, or what ever color, are more PRONE to skin problems ect. Simple is not true......so can any color.

Most breeders test for the regular short comings of their breed in question. But I can bet not one test to see if what they are about to breed will in deed throw puppies of color, or will throw puppies with allergies, or even with dew claws, ect.

So my final point is, that breeding color is 100% based on PERSONAL preference and there is know bearing that they are any different in structure, mind, temperament, working ability or loyalty. There is not evidence that ONLY colored dogs have defects, and no one has specified the EXACT defeat they think they have that standard dogs do NOT get or have. And if you are going to damn the colored dogs you have to damn the standard dogs that produced it as well, as THAT dog would also have the "problem" Everyone agrees faults are "genetic", so if the blues carry a default and they are from standard colored parents, will they not get it from their standard colored parents??? When it is phrased in the standard, it says they are of FAULT, NOT DE FAULT. And again, who are they to say that the standard is what it is, as far as color. Show me this standard written back in the end of the 1800's early 1900's please so I can see truth to whom founded the bred and to whom should be the ONLY one stating a standard.

They should n't be destroyed, just altered and sold at a discount as pets.

Are you saying the blues in general or the whole litter.....again it will not take it away as EVERY puppy in that litter will carry and THROW the gene and eventually color if bred to another dog carrying the gene.......OK for argument sake lets say alter the whole litter.....you would have to alter the parents as well because they are the initial carriers.....so lets say they are bot of top quality lines, titles coming out their butt....so do you think they should be altered....does not matter who you bred them to....every puppy from either dog will throw that gene, EVEN if it does not result in color. And every puppy from the next generation ect.......That is what no one is getting.

What about floppy ears?  Floppy ears doesn't mean a GSD is a bad specimen or unhealthy, the ears are just floppy.  Is it OK to breed those?  What about long coated whippets?  Borzoi are longcoated sighthounds and they do just fine, so what's wrong with a whippet with a long coat?  Or a basenji with a straight tail like a greyhound?  A solid colored beagle?  What's wrong with parti-colored poodles?  It doesn't harm cockers to be parti-colored. 

Oleos, I will agree with you that it is pointless to have that exclusion in the standard.  I am also quite irritated that blue has been nixed in America for weimaraners but in most of the world it's still fine.  There are a lot of politics involved in a lot of breeds.  IMO, in a working dog, color should not have anything to do with the matter except when it comes down to health.  In the GSD, the normal colors, white, and dilute are not linked to any health issues.  I would suggest that if you (and other breeders) want to make a stand for the blue dog, breed the best darn blue/blue carriers you can find and make a line of dogs of standard and dilute colors where working people will have to stand up and take notice.  If a blue dog you've bred is the best PSD a department has ever had (and they've had good dogs), good on you.  If a blue dog you bred is the best tracker and urban SAR dog out there with highly productive, difficult deployments, good on you.  If a blue dog you bred earns a SchH III under a strong decoy and good judge, a UDX, TDX, and a MACH, good on you.  In other words, give people a reason to look at these other colors besides "some dog 30 years ago was doing very well in a show ring that many people on this board don't care about."  Though I honor the standard and feel we should NOT alter the height standard, allow in dogs without a double coat, and anything that alters good working physical ability, I wish they would change the color requirements but that will happen about when a Czech/Belgian working line gets VA at the German Sieger Show.

OR- Make like the Berger Blanc Suisse and make a new breed!  They're doing quite well for themselves, all things considered.

Oleos, if sire and dam throw a litter of all dilutes, just don't breed the sire and dam together anymore.  Make a note on BOTH SIDES to avoid very, very similar lines.  Wash hands of situation and carry on, no need to alter the parents unless there are several other niggling faults that just keep adding up.  Every situation and individual are different.