Freaks now in the UK - Page 17

Dingodog, that makes sense. It's a sad state of affairs, though, when any DQ fault at all is allowed in the show ring, not because there is any problem with a faulty dog, but because it gives idiots an excuse to act ignorant and make a buck. Not to mention giving idiots permission to breed without reading the damn standard, because the standard is irrelevant if you can show anything you can register. So remind me....WHAT is the point of showing, again? Although if you think about it, another question is Why don't you see many of these awful dogs in the ring if their owners are so positive that they are great dogs? I suppose they just offer up that pathetic newbie excuse that it's all political and the judges only like a certain bloodline. That could be true...or it could be that the dog is ugly like those Selah dogs that are so horrifying. I bet that moron thinks judges don't like her dogs because of their COLORS.

ARE there any disqualifying faults??? Obviously all dogs (and people, ahem) have faults, but does the KC list any disqualifying faults??

Pam, could you please tell me why you posted a link to the Pakistani GSD club?
My interest is genuine and I would appreciate an answer. Thanks Rizia

I'm coming into this mighty late, but this pisses me off.

EVERY bloodline, no matter how high quality, carries faults. There is always a chance that even a top breeding can produce health defects, incomplete dentition, long coats, mono/crytochrids, weak ears, disqualifying/faulted colors, or simply puppies who structure, type, or temperment do not live up to its parents.  Said puppies should then be placed in pet homes and never go on to be bred! To argue "well so-and-so top stud produced this and that" is a lame argument. If next year's VA1 produced green and orange brindle dogs with curly coats and no drive, would you stand up for them, too? I don't care WHAT dog it came from, pet quality is pet quality, period. It's not some rare and fabulous thing and it can't be justified because a few good dogs carried said faults.

Is that not the point of being a responsible breeder, weeding out the faults and trying to only keep what is positive and correct for the breed?

Listen, if I saw a breeder who bred livers/blues/etc whose dogs had clearly SG-V quality structure, health tested, and actual working titles, I would believe that that breeder takes instating off colors seriously and commend them for having healthy, working quality GSDs. I wouldn't touch those colors with a 10 foot pole myself, but a working dog is a working dog.

So find me one breeder of "rare colors" that is seriously involved in working dogs. ONE. You can't. They are only about one thing: $$$!!!!!

Of course...if they weren't in it for the money, they wouldn't call the colours 'rare'!  

VM
Yes the KC has a list of disqualifying faults which at the present time includes the off colours, as well as long coats.
Whilst people can show any registered dog, even if it has disqualifying faults, they would be unlikely to try, knowing that they have no chance of a placing.

If the off colours came to be included in the standard, that would be a different thing, but I still think that they would be discriminated against.

Sigh. KCzaja. Well put. I believe that is it in a nutshell. It's all about a buck. They can't get a job, so they pimp out the dogs.

Actually, the KC Breed Standard does not list the off colours as disqualifying, just highly undesirable and secondary in importance to other faults as it does not affect health and working ability.  It does not mention long coat at all, just states there is no hard and fast rule for the length of the hair except that short, mole type coat is undesireable.

www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/136

Margaret N-J