Coat color in GSD's - Page 1

Hello everyone,
I'm relatively new to this forum and have only actually registered today but I just wanted to ask an honest question.

Why is there so much controversy over coat color in GSD's? If the breeder is responsible, gets all health checks done, trains and handles their dogs on a frequent and consistant basis, produces great tempermeant, etc, etc, whats the problem? It's not like the color of a GSD's effects their function. And I believe no study to date has concluded that it negatively impacts their health.

I know there is the all mighty standard to attest to, but no one culls their dog if its ears are a bit too short, or  if its angulation is way past acceptable, while a liver dog is often culled immediately. I personally don't think anyone should breed specifically for color. But If you can have a great dog that is a blue or a liver.. what's the real issue?

this is being discussed on several different threads on this forum already.  you have the people who think anything non standard (even longcoats) should not be bred,  then you have the people working with non standard dogs, some just for the money, and some to improve the quality of these colors in hopes of gaining more acceptance like the white breeders have done and still are trying to do.

you're right though, color doesn't affect the working ability or temperment whatsoever

Nor does color affect structure. But the point is, next to none of the breeders deliberately producing these colors are breeding dogs who are quality in structure with real working ability. I think Uberland knows someone working on SchH with a liver sable, and that's awesome, but that's one out of how many?

Find me some liver/white/blue breeders whose current breeding dogs are titled in any working event that displays a GSDs correct temperment, all health checks, and correct structure. And a CGC doen't count, your neighbor's goldendoodle can get that...

There is a Standard for the GSD to be followed by breeders who care about the breed and its betterment. No breeder is to breed against the Standard and claim otherwise or claim his/her dogs are so and so in order to market them. Some colors are faulty like liver, so a responsible breeder should not breed for this specific color and claim his/her dogs are great or he or she is keen on the betterment of the breed. When some breeders do that they get criticism and some would try to expose them.
However lately you find so many threads started just to expose others without proof or with false accusations or just due to misunderstanding between the OP and that breeder. That in itself what irritates many members of the forum as arguments arise due to such posts with bad intentions.

Ibrahim

 I think culling would be rather extreme, I don't know if breeders really cull livers.  If I ever bred one I would not consider culling it but would sell it as a pet jus as I would a pup with only one testicle for instance, not for breeding or show.  I think what people get angry about is when some breeders specialize in these non-standard colours and advertise them as something special, exotic, rare and very expensive, when in actual fact they are simply dogs that do not confirm to the standard.

Scarlet, the negative connotation is because they go against the standard. A breeder who chooses to follow the standard will no sooner breed to a blue, white, or liver dog as they would to a dog with soft ears, one testicle, or an overbite. A fault is a fault.

Yes there is a reason in the Standard for what is considered a fault, in case of liver I think it is considered a dilute and if bred for this color it will result in lack of pigmentation (poor pigment) in successive generations.
There is a possibility also that when a unfavourable recessive gene or trait is enhanced through breeding for such it may bring accompanying similar recessives or unfavourable traits.
That said I do not believe I am the best to answer you on this in depth inquiry (debate) as there are other members of better knowledge than I, and here I request them to come forward and shed better light on your questions (argument).

Regards
Ibrahim

The most obvious reason is that the founder of the breed did not want them, but he himself would not blame: "No good dog is a bad color".

I think that means breed for the dog, and not for the color but if you get an unexpected color check and see too, if you got a good dog.