Color Disqualifications

ok i found out why... and the reason is... Nazis!
http://www.awsaclub.com/faq.htm
i might have known it would be something so simple as misguided prejudices based on politics and popularity...

The Nazi thing is only speculation.  There's no real proof of it at all.
 
Psychologically speaking, a dark dog is more intimidating than a light dog, which is another reason you don't see White patrol dogs.
 
I've seen white Narc dogs, White SAR dogs, White Drug Dogs (Talking strictly GSDs here), but I have as yet to see a white patrol dog.
 
You don't have to like it that it's a DQ color, nor do you have to understand it.  It's not your job to decide or understand.  It is what it is.
 
A White dog that blends into the snow?  Meh..ok if you've got an LGD, but personally, I don't want somebody getting close enough to my flock to discover there's a dog there.  I want them to be able to see the dog right away during its work and decide "Crap!  I dun wanna be dealin' with Fido!"
 
Sometimes I think the purpose of breeding LGDs was (and I do so love thinking this) Schadenfreude.  Let's see how close the bad guy gets before the dog has at him!
 
I don't think White GSDs should be accepted as a separate breed because they're not separate!  Quite honestly it makes me ill to see that the FCI actually accepted them as a separate breed.  THEY SHARE THE SAME GENES AS REGULAR GSDs!!! They're still being interbred with colored GSDs!  The only thing they're being bred for, is color, because people can't stand it that somebody said "No".
 
I've no problems with white GSDs as a whole, but they shouldn't be a separate breed, especially when people still breed them back to colored ones.  You're only askin' for trouble breeding for one specific trait.

I believe the color split in collies has to do with the dominance of sables in the ring (which has dated alllll the way back to the 1870s and Old Cockie, as I understand it), but I could be wrong. Aditionally, only rough collies are split in the classes (smooths aren't) and they're not varieties- just classes. Aussies are split in the open classes, as are dobes and danes.

Sometimes I think the purpose of breeding LGDs was (and I do so love thinking this) Schadenfreude. Let's see how close the bad guy gets before the dog has at him!

Well, funny thought but no.

One, LGDs don't guard against people, though they do warn them off as they do any other out of place thing in their territory, like a hawk hunting too close to the flock or deer passing through. Two, A good LGD is up and alerting as soon as they detect trouble. Stealth is not on the game plan. A good dog gives a potential threat plenty of time for second thoughts and lots of room to size up the defensive capabilities of the LGDs and beat a hasty retreat. []

Three, as I mentioned, there are many breeds of LGDs that are colored. The white seems to come when populations of colored dogs with white trim (think Saint Bernard and Swiss Mt, which are closely related to the Maremma and Pyranees), become isolated and the white spreads over the whole body as it will in such situations (ww populations - no gene for expression of base hair color). The mountains of Europe were a prime place for this to happen, as are the mountains of Turkey. But in the grazes of Spain, on the plains of the Caucasus and further on into the steppes of Asia, wider-ranging populations maintain color in the LGD breeds.

ETA: Wait, Aussies are split in AKC showing? They are talking about this for Border Collies now. It's the silliest notion I've heard yet - no reason for it but a desire for the owners of colored dogs to have a chance to compete too. In Australia and New Zealand, where the show breed genetics come from, black and white with perfect clear markings, is pretty much it.

American dogs have much greater variety, so guess who gets shut out when dogs with Australasian genetics compete against the North American/UK dogs? Judges like the Australasian dogs much better because they have the qualities that win in the ring - consistent appearance, great full coats, that driving gait (which is not natural to working-bred Border Collies), conformation based on perfect angulation, and sweet expressions.

Well, this should be fun to watch as it develops . . .

The last show I was at I was very impressed with the BCs.  There was a huge variety of types in the ring.  I have a good friend who has Australian dogs, but not with the huge coat that you see so often.  Some with longer legs, some with flat hair, some with long hair, some short, some crazy hair, and a few different colors.  Most of them looked very much like working dogs.  None of them were the perfect image that you see in show rings.  I was very impressed with the variety.  

I just don't understand why anyone would even want to show a BC in conformation. Who cares what they look like; the proper venue for testing BCs is sheep herding trials. Same with GSDs, the proper venue for testing them is Schutzhund.
The dogs bred to be pretty companions, ok, fine, we do care what they look like, go show them in conformation.

They're only split in the open classes, so I don't see that it really matters much- still has to be a good enough dog to get the points.  

Same with GSDs, the proper venue for testing them is Schutzhund.

I'm not all too keen on the politics in showing GSDs so I'm not going to defend conformation, but I don't totally agree with this.  The versatility of GSDs is part of their breed standard; they don't have to be a SchH/protection/police dog to be a good quality GSD.  A lot of fanciers don't really want/need a super drivey dog.  The breeder Chop is from does advanced obedience, agility, and tracking and only does conformation to get the dogs championed and proven to be good breeding stock.  They are not into dog "beauty pageants", but they don't do SchH either.  IMO those sports a no less worthy or important to GSDs than just SchH. 

Did you not know that the AQHA now allows you to register those crop-out paints? If both parents are DNA'd they can be registered.

 
but if you don't own the stallion or mare that a foal is from you have to track down and convince the current owners to go DNA test it so you can register.  That's a headache all by itself and sometimes near impossible.  I have a real nice paint mare with full qh lines that I can't use in my breeding program because I cannot come up with enough proof that she is qh bred.  Also horses that are registered who would have failed the revious white rule get an undesireable color mention on their papers.  I've got 2 which have that permanent little addition marked on their papers about how this horse has markings or a color that is considered undesireable in the quarter horse breed.
 
Maybe if there was a point to a specific color but I've always judged an animal first on how well it can work or can be used for what I need.  Descriminating against color when the animal can do it's job perfectly well seems extremely stupid.  Especially when there are many other things people breed for that make an animal unable to work and sometimes even cause health problems when the animal is only kept around as a pet without doing much of any physical activity.  If everyone bred for health, temperament, and physical ability first and color second it wouldn't be a problem but those idiots who only breed for color ruin it for the good breeders.  I'd definitely pay a little extra for an animal with an interesting color provided it could still do it's job, had no health issues, and I actually had the extra money to spend.  I'd like to breed some nice AQHA registered tobianos in the future if I can get my hands on a good working quality double registered homozygous stallion to cross with my little herd of AQHA mares. 

ColleenC, the point of conformation is conformation, not variety, and the type they are selecting for overall is the non-working variety because it's been bred to win in show for fifty years now, overseas. That's just the nature of the beast. Any variety you see now is actually very subtle compared to the true depth of variety in the breed as a whole. Also, it will eventually disappear - it is already virtually non-existent at the really prestigious shows.

I suspect you didn't see any dogs that looked like these in the breed ring, and certainly none like these were put up! Not only are these purebred, but they are extremely well-bred, the sire of the three black and white being the current National Cattle Trial Champion and the tri color being very closely related.



I lurk on AKC lists and the two major factions represented by "Australian show type" and " American sport type" (it is NOT working type) are only united on one point: their mutual distrust of those of us who refuse to register AKC and subject our dogs to their notion of what a working dog should be. If it were up to them, the four very talented dogs represented up above would be a thing of the past.

That's awesome, Brookcove!  Thanks for the pic.  I'm contually amazed by the variety of BCs....and they all look great!  I like the conformation BCs as well, but I'm certaintly not partial to them over working varieties.  I think it's really cool that people are so devoted to maintaining the working ability and health of the breed over aesthetics and arbitrary same-ness.

if those dogs were ever to end up in the pound they would be labeled.. mutts.. and many AKC showers already label them as mutts.....

i saw this on a BC website -
AKC vs. the Border Collie

from www.stellerbordercollies.com

they have a genetics game too..http://pbskids.org/dragonflytv/games/dog_breeding_v37.swf

ORIGINAL: brookcove

Why not just find some pure bred Siberian Huskies that aren't as fluffy or don't perfectly fit the breed standard and start breeding working dogs from them? You can breed out what was bred in to a dog, it just takes time. This way at least the dogs would be pure breds and any who can't do the work could be sold as pets. I mean, you can get a working Aussie from show lines, they just may have a little longer hair than the person wants but they can still do the job.

All right. You've got a job to do now - supplies to move, cattle herds to trail. Both the jobs you mention take not only a "good enough" vague instinct, but abilities that are hard for someone to understand who doesn't depend on those abilities for their lives or livelihood (and usually both).

Just for the sake of maintaining a "pure breed," I would not want to depend on the so-so abilities of a dog that was not 100% bred to find trails, listen for changes in ice quality, and not only pull hard and fast but go carefully when needed. I also wouldn't want to depend on a not-quite strong or fast enough dog during a cold long run, or spend time stopping and de-icing his beautiful but not correct coat.

I'm talking about show Sibes, as you are I assume. They do run purebred Sibes up there - some people prefer them - but they are not the show dogs by any means.

And why would I do the same with an Aussie? The show Aussies and working line Aussies are so far apart now that it would be really not a reach to call them different breeds (the Border Collies are in a similar state and even further along - show dogs are considered a seperate breed by most BC people).

If I have a choice between a dog with all the natural abilities I need, and a dog that would be struggling to keep up every day, why would I choose a show dog? For one, that's assuming that the show lines are the be all and end all that defines a breed, which I definitely don't accept for working dogs that still work. For another, even if that were true, that would be taking my loyalty to a breed too far. If I'm truly not finding what I need in the breeds that are out there, then it's time to start breeding 100% for function and abandoning breed boundaries.

 
Brook, my whole point was that these people are purposly breeding mutts! They may be able to do the job, but so can purebreds as there are show quality dogs that can do the job they were originally bred to do. The Alaskan Huskies these people are breeding are not an actual breed. Here's a few links. The first is a description of the Alaskan Husky.
[linkhttp://www.cabelasiditarod.com/runyan_husky.html]http://www.cabelasiditarod.com/runyan_husky.html[/link]
 
This one has some pictures. Yes some of the dogs look similar to Siberian Huskies, but they're skinnier, the only similarity is the coloring. Some look like mutts.
[linkhttp://www.dogbreedinfo.com/alaskanhusky.htm]http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/alaskanhusky.htm[/link]
 
 
And here's some more pictures.
[linkhttp://www.dogomania.com/gallery/breeds/breed12/]http://www.dogomania.com/gallery/breeds/breed12/[/link]
 
I'm not against people breeding dogs for their work ability, I am against people intentionally(this being the key word here) breeding mutts. Some of the so called "Alaskan Huskies" I've seen have no resemblance whatsoever to a Husky. At least the working Aussie's and Border Collie's I've seen are recognizable as an Aussie or a Border Collie. And some show quality Aussie's and Border's are able to do the work they were bred for. I'm sure if they'd work with it they could get a good working Siberian Husky line going instead of purposely breeding more mutts.
 
Shiva

i'm no expert on husky history but there is an obvious breed difference..
and i already posted the dog breed info website about them..
the Sibes were obviously from Siberia, not Alaska, but the Alaskans have a bit of ALL dogs in them... as i said before above. they were born of necessity. looks and consistency went out the window a long time ago.. i'm a huge Jack London fan (call of the wild, that spot, to build a fire, batard and white fang) many of the dogs up there were bought, sold and/or stolen and sent to the north during the gold rush, especially big furry dogs.... these guys didnt care about genetics. they just wanted something to get them through the wilderness. if a big newfoundland bred with a saint, great! more big wheel dogs! and if those pups bred with a native dog, even better! instincts for finding their way! these arent show dogs, nor are they pets. if someone is selling them as pets then they should be shot. but they are a breed. they are one of the last of the living examples of what a working dog is and what makes a working dog. life and death makes a working dog.... not a show ring or someone breeding dogs with a working history....  if he cant hack it then he's dead because the wild kills him. and he can not pass on his weak genes.

People do the same thing with herding dogs. I have no problem with it. There's a type of dog called a cur that is a blend of bully type, hound type, and collie type to produce hard-hitting dogs that "bay" stock or large game. Some people still breed these and still crossbreed to keep the type characteristics stable in their lines, since they have very small gene pools to work from. These dogs are invaluable to hunt feral pigs and herd cattle and goats in dense vegetation.

From what I understand (I have a couple friends involved with mushers up north), just like with herding dogs, mushing dogs are divided by function. Every team needs dogs with certain abilities, and then different teams may serve various functions themselves as a whole.

Dogs must be suited for the job, not the other way around. Therefore, lots and lots of monkeying with the lines goes on (as it does with herding dogs), to suit the need of the individual musher.

Homogeny is the enemy of the working dog.

Once the idea of "purebred" descends on a working breed as a driving force, it will no longer be able to meet the needs of every working situation for which the breed was originally intended. So, now we have situations where purebred Sibes are inadequate. They might need a hound crossbreed for more guts and staying power, or a sheepdog cross for more biddability, or a Malamute cross for more power, or a sighthound for more speed.

Mostly, they don't think, "I'll cross in this breed or that" for whatever the desired result is. They think, "Sam McCall has a wheel dog that I like a lot, that I'd like to cross on my bitch that is the best trail dog I've ever had. Should be some nice potential lead dogs in there."

I have a friend who vets for a lot of mushers and she's got herding dogs herself. She says the cultures are exactly the same in terms of how they think when figuring out potential breedings. But we have the variety in our breed already and so don't tend to outcross for what we need. The breeders of Alaskans are where Border Collie breeders were in the early years, when we were developing a type of dog, not a breed, and so anything goes. As long as it is healthy, functional, and has demonstrated its potential, who cares about breed lines?

I'm not saying it's perfect. Yes, there's a lot of unwanted pups produced. But, I could say the same for Sibe breeders. Heck, I just checked online and there are about fifty Sibe breeders within driving distance of me, with litters currently on the ground. You can't tell me there's a crying need for huskies in the Southeast US in the middle of summer.

Please note, however, no Alaskans. No one around here is producing Alaskans - I assume there's not much call for them in a region with no frostline. That's the difference between crossbreeding for the sake of function, and the fancy commercial breeders. There are limits both from the inside of the culture (if it's not working, it doesn't get bred), and outside (if you don't need it, you won't breed it).