Long Coats and Greed of this Breed - Page 2

AGREE W/ACE 952.

I dont like them personally although I had one for a short time as a rescue and I can honestly say the coat was easier to care for. This is just my opinion but I think that if the dog is excellent in structure and or working ability, then he shouldnt be disqualified for his coat length.

Greed is Greed no matter what the arena. Its up to the buyer to make sure they are not being taken.

I have been aware of Standard Show kennels that put a heafty price on their longcoats (around £2k), they also sell them for breeding - which although I see no problem with this, the same kennels have been well known to slate longcoats in the past. So if its not for money what is it for?

Please pardon the hijack...



I'm still trying to find out what happens when a litter from two parents listed in the main SV registry contains one or more long stockcoats--how is the litter registered? Are the stock coat pups registered in the main book, and the long stockcoats registered in the Langstockhaar book? Are the parents moved from the main book and into the Langstockhaar book because they produced long stockcoat pups?
  I've wondered this too. Apparently, the distinction is made at the genetic level, not the physical appearance. At one of the regional shows, a nice looking dog was entered in the LC class, but there was some debate as to whether it was a langstockhaar with a short coat, or a stock hair with a longer coat. The dog wasn't a LC to the degree the other entries were. It had a bit of fluff behind the ears and silky fur on its tail, but fuzz-free feet, no tufts inside the ears... and basically looked like a SC, save for the aforementioned ears and tail.

The Judge said in issues like this, the dog must be tested genetically, to identify the coat type and which class it is to be entered in.




I think the most logical thing to do, aside from the huge amount of time and resources, would be to maintain a "long coat carrier" registry of stock hair dogs that are known to produce long coats. If the distinction is not simply based on looks but actually genetics, then I think maintaining the registry based on genotype of LC and LC-producers would make sense.

Naturally the LC-carrying stockhairs would still be registered as "stock coats," but keeping tabs on known carriers would also help breeders who wished to produce -- or avoid! -- the occurance of LCs in their lines.

More like the SV realized they had a cash cow that they were not milking and after all, it's not about bettering the breed, it's about making money from the breed. 

 

Dude, you are SO in my head.  I couldn't deny the usefulness of a genotype tracking purpose of the registry, for those breeders selecting either for or against the coats.  I don't want long coats in my breeding, but I've recently begun to tamper with bloodlines that are known to carry the trait.  Better informed breeding decisions could be made toward both aims.

My dog's  breeder(WL's) has LC's  pop up now and then, and they most often are the "pick of the litter" in the breeder's eye, drive/biddability/temperament testing favor seems to go to the coaties.  The breeder has not yet kept one for their program, however.

 I have a long stockcoat and two stock coats, I much prefer the stock coats for maintenance. 

If the LC characteristic was genetically linked to other desireable criteria, then why don't we see a lot more impressively performing LC's?  Not saying there aren't any, but if so, who are these dogs?

Haven't been active in the venue in a long time, but you used to see a heck of a lot of coated GSDs in AKC obedience trials--especially at the UD/UDX/OTCH levels.

I suspect that someone interested in competing at the upper levels of SchH is probably not going to select the coated pup, since that (formerly) would eliminate the option of using the dog for breeding once they'd achieved their goal.  Kinda like you don't see many bitches at the higher levels of the sport, either...the serious competitor generally goes for the male dogs.