I'd just like to draw your attention to the above jess - with regard to the quote (of mine) that you have chosen to use, just to put things in context!

Although I think that ultimately we are agreed, you say " Picking the dogs from the litter that look the best and then breeding from them"

again, i would suggest this is the sign of someone who does not give sufficient thought to what they are breeding.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that breeding purely on the basis that a bitch is 'pretty' just isnt enough! There is so much more to breeding/genetics that putting a dog and a bitch together and hoping for a litter of clones

thandi

I honestly think that you should have to have a license to breed full stop. And with that license you have to undergo a test (like getting your drivers license) the reason being so you don't endanger lives. What about the lives of all the dogs they might be bringing into the world! The test woudl be good sound knowledge of genetics, so the only problem then would be morals....

I have no problems with dogs of non standard colours/markings/coat length, however i do have major problems with people deliberately breeding for these & then calling them rare-more value-better etc than dogs bred to the breed standard

IMHO before everything & jointly in first place comes temperament/character & health.

I.E. No one should breed from any dog that hasn't got an excellent temperament & character & that is healthy & that has had all the available health tests done(both clinical & genetic)

Then & only then should the dog be judged against the breed standard & if it fails because it is the wrong colour/coat type/ear carriage etc then it should nbot be bred from either.

Why ? because too many dogs are breed to start with-do we really need"silver"labradors(that IMHO look like Weims crosses)when there are 46,000 plus registered normal coloured labradors bred each year(with probably the same amount of unregistered bred as well)?

Do we need "white"(most aren't BTW)/blue/panda/longcoat GSDs bred together when these occur in litters from dogs that are standard colour & coat length ? Most of these"rare"GSDs look nothing like the breed standard & because most are bred to make money they have temperament & health failings

In litters of Great Danes there are lots of colours that can occur because in the past not all breeders have stuck strictly to normal colour breeding. A friend had a litter of blues in which some were marked like dobermanns ie blue & fawn we traced why a fawn Ch had been bred to a black bitch off the pedigree(not ususual to breed black to blue BTW) hence the markings. In Harlequin breeding blue merle/mantles(now an accepted colour BTW)are often used to dilute the risk of deafness & other problems found in breeding harlequin to harlequin. Oddly enough the merle was the original colour of the GD

I am glad that the KC in future will be registering all non standard colours in GSDs as just that so no more champagne/white sables(sable BTW is not a colour but a colour pattern so it is wrong to call a GSD a sable it should be a grey sable, fawn sable etc), cream, biscuit, panda, black & white(I jest not) etc they will all be simply non standard !

There is a well know line in GSDs that produces dogs with terrible ear carriage(soft ears)I wonder what people would think if this was deliberately bred for would they be as attractive as the non standard colour & coats ?

i do agree to certain points breeding isn't easy and many good breeders do their homework in depth first .....firstly a breeder will always pick the best from the litter ie..conformation and markings will play apart of course ..but we all know thats purly cosmetic and she must be fully health tested before even considering breeding

I think the practice of dividing a breed into separate colour lines can do a lot of harm as it does in effect reduce the available gene pool, increasing the level of inbreeding, so increasing the chances of throwing up the odd recessive defect.

Breeding black to fawn can't be blamed for this. The pattern you describe, like a Dobermann, is tanpoint and is a recessive A locus pattern, definitely not a result of combining black and fawn. It occured simply because both parents carried it.

This pattern does occur in Danes and separting colour lines is not going to remove it from the breed. Only selective breeding with DNA testing can do this but surely the odd occurrance of a mismarked puppy should not be a major concern to a breeder in a breed where health problems are a concern.

The risk of deafness can be vastly reduced by stopping the practice of breeding harlequin x harlequin which show breeders do in the belief that it increases the number of harls in the litter.

This is one area where I agree completely with Bodhi as colour for the showring is considered the primary objective here, and above health.

The panda orginated in the USA just a few years ago through a mutation. I didn't realise we had them in the UK already

My point is, when raising this topic, why does it matter to the working ability of a dog (for instance), that it's spots aren't quite was is "desired"..

HOW is breeding the "best" dogs with the "best markings" bettering a breed? What has that got to do with improving the breed??

When I mentioned pet quality - I did NOT mean breeders who only breed pet quality.

As many have said, in a litter of puppies, you might only get one or 2 that make the "standard" - alot based on markings, and aesthetics. By discarding the imperfect markings and incorrect coat lengths (etc) - how is that bettering the breed - when one of those "mismarked" pups might have perfect conformation and perfectly free of genetic faults?

Can you be more specific as to which breed Bodhi. If you mean like the colour of FGDs and Herders then yes, colour/white spotting does matter to the working ability but mostly, in other breeds, it is aesthetic and often detrimental to health where excessive white and dilute is concerned.

Coat length and density is functional too and very important to the working ability of the dog though often taken to excess in some breeds so it becomes more of a hindrance to the dog's original function eg American Cocker.

I agree with thats satement Dyane 100% far too much of it.

Bodhi.
If a dog is not correct in any point it should be considered possibly not suitable for breeding, its to what degree breeders view those points and their severity to which they may hinder the animal.

Say a Border Terrier with a wry mouth, or undershot, both IMO bad faults, but I doubt it would stop him holding a Fox at bay, nor stop him killing Rats, the breeds original purpose. However should that dog have a soft coat, it may seriously compromise his ability to do his job in bad weather. It will not offder him any protection from heat/cold or wet. Some may say that a soft coat is nothing, I think this is the sort of thing you speak of, "asthetics" but its very important.
Dawn.

Ok - for example - spots on dalmations..

Markings on harlequin great danes..

Mismarked labs (black spots on a yellow lab)

Eg - Rottie

eg - Vallhund

Why so specific?

Why does breeding towards this "better the breed"? I am sure health etc etc IS bred for aswell - but those "undesirables" will most likely NOT be bred from - even though, as said before, theymay be perfect examples, can work exceptionally and be free of genetic faults?

Why eliminate these dogs?

You're talking about bettering the breed. If there wasn't a breed standard to compare dogs too, there would pretty soon be no breed. So If you value the fact that we have some pretty amazingly diverse dog breeds, all created for different purposes, then you have to accept that the breed standard is going to stay, and it's going to be fussy.

Conformation relates to "conformity" or adherence to the breed standard. A lot of it is how the dog is "put together" but coat colour and type are also a part of it, as well as character.

Of course I don't think that breeders should place conformity to the breed standard above the health of the individual, but widening the gene pool isn't the be all and end all. Look at irish terriers - one of the rarest of our native breeds, about 15 pups registered in the last 3 months, and no known congenital defects.

If the breed standards start to allow new colour variants, what will they concede next? Bigger dalmations? Drop-eared huskies? Smooth-coated border terriers? None of these is going to disimprove the health of the individuals, but they will dilute the breeds we know and love. There's a lot to be said for hybrid vigour, but some of us when we get a dog specifically want a terrier, or a lab, or a papillon, and if we know our chosen breed to fit into our way of life that's not such a bad thing.