Speechless - Page 8

I personally, dislike black & tans, and prefer sables. If we DQ'd the vast majority of B&T's and reinserted the bit about "It is desireable to try to improve his appearance, but nothing must be done that in any way will detract from his usefulness." into the standard again, I'd be happy as dog doo. But disqualifying that color, we'd still miss out on (only a few) great dogs that can actually do what they're supposed to, and can offer their strengths to future generations. Generalizations are one thing, rules are definitely another.  I say, readmit the whites (just one), allow for long coats again (employing just one) and bring in a brindle (or two) however you can manage that one.

My understanding was the "wolf"coloration actually referred to sables. Thanks so much for the great quotes, darylehret!

Sue, so very, very glad to see you back. Amazing how you and I, being from such different "camps" of the GSD, still manage to see eye to eye on nearly every point. It's called upholding the breed.

I hope some one can explain why the brindle coloring was eliminated. Personally, I rather like the dark brindle Dutchies. ¶For that matter, why was the wire coat eliminated?

I think it was the preference at the time for sables, that saw the brindle color's demise. Being the most dominant trait, it would be the easiest to purge from the breed. Also, not having the brindle, would give the German's national breed a more distinct identity of its own, apart from the Dutch shepherd.

Wolf coloration does refer to sables, I agree, but was just using B&T for my personal analogy, and mind you, knowing my reasons are wrong, my reasons would be greater justified than the SV's for disallowing whites (at the time). There were no health issues in the late 20's or early 30's related to whites, but there are serious issues today with B&T's related to "utility". It was preference, not utility that allowed the standard to be altered. The cardinal rule was destroyed, even in Stephanitz's time.

Seriously, I wouldn't rule B&T's out, in fact there's a few I have great respect for. But sort of like the Nazi's, workingline breeders want to also make themselves more identifiable from those "other guys", whose dogs we "generally" find lacking.  As long as priorities are properly ordered, who cares?

It's a difficult matter to be able to state in a pups youth, that it is "of a quality well suited for breeding." It's not as safeguarding as the German criteria for stewardship of the breed, but in order to increase the already LOW standards adopted by the AKC, I would propose a two-part registration requirement for breeding...
1. a Purebreed status, to get LTD Registration, not full
2. and a Breed Survey to get FULL Registration, to then get the litter registered as Purebreeds

A breed survey could include various things to be evaluated at a later development in the intended producer's lifetime, things that truly matter for the sake of the breed, regarding emphasis on character, intelligence, drive, biddability, nerve strength etc. Things that are less easily enhanced or concealed by training and conditioning.

By enforcing a Breed Survey, despite not having a working trial requirement, that would at least evaluate breeding potential based on character qualities and health related matters, the AKC can be empowered to do more than simply expect breeders will "do the right thing" on their own, because with certainty, they won't. As it stands now, papering dogs solely on their purebreed status, and fueled in-market by their unique or popular color or oversized proportions, is why we find so many problematic pet lines, that don't suit working requirements.

Also, change the terms "Full and Limited" registration, because even people who have no intention whatsoever of breeding, somehow get it in their head that "Limited" registration somehow makes their dog inferior.

Mystere, I'd like to know, too, about the elimination of brindle in the GSD. I'm pretty sure that the brindle gene is a dominant one. Could be why dutchies are all brindles? We need a Ceph or a pod to answer this one.

lmao -- brindle is postulated as dominant, and clearly is so to fawn...which would make it a very eay color to eradicate.  It's those recessive alleles that cause difficulty.  It's why you see Dutch Malinois popping out of brindle to brindle matings.

I like Darryls ideas...lol, I almost always do.  It's very similiar to what the German Horse folks do...but I've always seen alot more sense in the way the horse folks breed over the way the dog folks breed O.o

~Cate

It's no different than the growing number of shady breeders I have been seeing who are beginning to use the increasing  popularity of  "black sables" as a puppy sales pitch point, but when you check further, you see no titles, no health clearances, no show ratings, nothing. 

Color is not even the icing on the cake.  The only time I would use color to decide on a puppy in a particular litter is if my picks were so uniform color was the only difference.  Same thing with choosing an older dog, color just doesn't matter.  That said, the chance of an off color puppy in a litter I was looking at would probably be nil since my interest is in schutzhund sport, & serious breeders don't have unproven off color dogs in their lines in the first place.  BUT as Mystere said, I would have no problem taking one if I thought it was the best in a litter and I was able to get it at a much reduced price (since it would most likely  have no future  value as a breeding dog as things stand today).

The standard is where it is, the why really doesn't matter anymore.  Going outside the standard and purposely breeding dogs with DQ faults for those DQ faults does nothing to better or even maintain the breed.  People who feel passionatly about these off colors need to work to change the standard, work to title their dogs,  but they need to understand there are no acceptable excuses for breeding inferior dogs,  no one should be breeding GSDs if they can't jump through all the hoops, breeding dogs is not your "right"