# Great Dane Colors (among other breeds)



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Ok, so the great dane occurs in many colors. From what I have heard, there are over 100 colors. So... why does the AKC only accept harlequin, black, blue, fawn, brindle, and mantle?

Mousse... gorgeous chocolate color
Zuri... gorgeous brindlequin
Timber... fawnequin?
and I wouldn't even know what to call Kola.

Linsey, feel free to chime in here. Hahaha.

My point is that the above danes are all beautiful examples of the great dane's coat of many colors. Nick and I have decided that our next dog will likely be a dane (with a few more breeds in consideration) and, because I want to show my dane, I am very limited in color choices. I would love a brindlequin or a chocolate.

Anyhow... I have thought about it for years now and, to me, it just doesn't make sense... A chocolate dane isn't any less healthy than a fawn dane. And being a chocolate color doesn't make Mousse any less of a dane. A dane is a dane is a dane. I can understand discouraging certain colors in certain breeds like double dapples/double dilutes for health reasons but being something like a fawnequin does not make it any less of a dane.


----------



## xellil

I always thought of great Danes kind of like paint horses - basically the same but all kinds of different palettes to paint on.


----------



## luvMyBRT

Same thing with BRTs. They can only be shown in black.
These are all BRTs, but they show a recessive gene for a different color.


----------



## GoingPostal

You could ask that of several breeds, labs can come in brindle and black and tan, but those aren't showable colors either. It's the standard, there are great dogs who are too big or small for their breed standards, doesn't mean they are crap dogs, but they aren't the ideal. To me wanting an off color seems kind of silly, like the people who want "rare" liver Bostons or merle APBT, if you like the breed so much you think you'd like them as they were meant to be.


----------



## twoisplenty

Something outside of the breed has been introduced to get those colours. Thats why they are not allowed in the ring.


----------



## catahoulamom

You forgot about JDatwood and Danemama's brindlequin, Zuri! 

But, I'm just as stumped as you. Makes no sense to me, not much in the showing world does lol. I just don't get it, but it is quite ridiculous that they wouldn't allow a natural occurring color of the breed to show.

EDIT: I probably don't know what I'm talking about (I don't even know if those are natural occurring colors or not)... maybe I should just keep my trap shut? lol


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

xellil said:


> I always thought of great Danes kind of like paint horses - basically the same but all kinds of different palettes to paint on.


That's exactly how I have always thought of them. And, to add more horses to it, I have always equated the deaf/blind danes to lethal white overo syndrome even though the danes don't always have bad enough health issues to need to be euthanized.



luvMyBRT said:


> Same thing with BRTs. They can only be shown in black.
> These are all BRTs, but they show a recessive gene for a different color.
> 
> View attachment 5320
> 
> View attachment 5321
> 
> View attachment 5322
> 
> View attachment 5323


I suppose THAT one kind of makes sense since it is a BLACK Russian Terrier. Hahaha. But really, I especially like the last 2 with my favorite being picture 4. Black looks best but I wouldn't hesitate to get the wheaton/white or that last fellow you pictured.



GoingPostal said:


> You could ask that of several breeds, labs can come in brindle and black and tan, but those aren't showable colors either. It's the standard, there are great dogs who are too big or small for their breed standards, doesn't mean they are crap dogs, but they aren't the ideal. To me wanting an off color seems kind of silly, like the people who want "rare" liver Bostons or merle APBT, if you like the breed so much you think you'd like them as they were meant to be.


I think having standards for the way they are built (although I think we can all agree that some of those standards need to be drastically improved) is important because it keeps the body build from turning into whatever comes out. Breeds like the bluetick are built very well and they are a very healthy breed. Keeping their standard the way it is is important to make sure the breed does not allow any kind of deformities or mutations to run wild. Color though... I only used the great dane because they have SO many colors in the breed. As Sara pointed out, BRTs come in other colors too. I actually did not know that labs came in the two colors you mentioned. That is interesting! 

I don't see a reason to breed for "rare colors" but, especially in the great danes, colors other than the show colors are a LOT more common than the allowed colors. Look at harlequin breeding. SO many harl litters churn out merle mantles. It is a naturally occurring color that, by no means, a rare color. Why are merle mantles not showable?

And I'm pretty sure that Linsey and Natalie, who between the 8 danes, have only 3 showable colors. I'm pretty sure they love danes even though they have danes that aren't "how they were meant to be".



twoisplenty said:


> Something outside of the breed has been introduced to get those colours. Thats why they are not allowed in the ring.


You make a great point there. I will be the first to admit that I am no expert in breeding or genetics. Understand that this is coming from someone who is not involved in all of that. You breed boxers, yes? (And I have checked them out before. They are gorgeous!)

I have to ask though... Why was mantle added a few years back? Maybe you could use your knowledge of boxer breeding to edumacate those of us who don't understand all of this  I know I would appreciate it and I'm sure there are plenty of others who would too.


----------



## Caty M

Not much in dog showing makes a whole lot of sense. It's all looks, no temperament. In a dog show's eyes, who cares if a border collie can herd sheep, as long as it is exactly the "right" size and has nice markings. You look at the amazing dogs who actually DO those jobs, the REAL collies, and their looks are all over the map.. breeds did just fine before the onset of showing, and now we are seeing dogs suffering debilitating health problems. Using border collies again, a dog who had hip dysplasia and couldn't herd all day would not be bred from, and the genes not passed on. Not true nowadays! Dog showing has done nothing positive for dogs and dog breeds.


----------



## DaneMama

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Ok, so the great dane occurs in many colors. From what I have heard, there are over 100 colors. So... why does the AKC only accept harlequin, black, blue, fawn, brindle, and mantle?


It's because it creates the three "color families" within the Dane breed: 

Fawn/Brindle
Harlequin/Mantle
Black/Blue

This creates three very distinct gene pools within the breed as cross color breeding is not done often because it produces mismarks. Mismarks only produce more mismarks in the long run. A color pure line is crossed with another to freshen genetics and to strengthen a desired trait in the line, like fawns/brindles bred to a harl to increase conformation to the standard for harlequin color family dogs. Because of this a fawnequin can show up 6 generations later if the right breeding takes place (black to a harl, etc). 

Each color family is becoming so narrow in genetics its not a good thing. Its called a "bottleneck effect" in population genetics, but in this case the bottleneck is human choice. The GDCA (Great Dane Club of America) has for so long placed the color code strictly for breeding and showing, that most dogs within a color family share many common genes. I think a big reason why the color families were chosen so long ago is because the potential outcomes from each breeding is pretty predictable. Breeders know that if they breed fawn X fawn, they will only get fawn. Breeders know if they breed harlequin X mantle (depending on what each dog carries- harlequin genetics is VERY complicated!) that they will get harls, mantles, and merles in each pattern. Predictability in puppy coat color is what I think drove the decision to cut off the color families from one another. Like you said, there are 100's of color combinations in the Great Dane that occur naturally...but its hard to have a coat color standard to structure around them all. Since coat color is included in the Great Dane standard, they have to be limited. Does this mean that there SHOULD be a limitation on coat color within the Dane breed? 

In my opinion. NO. There is nothing wrong with breeding a well conforming harlequin to a well conforming brindle, as they will produce puppies that are still within the coat color standard, and can still be shown. What's there to gain? More genetic diversity within the breed as a whole. There has been rumor that Danes may be added to the hound group for showing, and if so, the coat color standard would go out the window. I will be very happy the moment this happens! 



> Mousse... gorgeous chocolate color
> Zuri... gorgeous brindlequin
> Timber... fawnequin?
> and I wouldn't even know what to call Kola.
> 
> Linsey, feel free to chime in here. Hahaha.


I'll chime in :wink: 

Timber is a fawn merle. Kola is a chocolate merle. Merle is a coat color PATTERN, not a specific color. So, you can have all kinds of merles...brindle, fawn, blue fawn, blue, chocolate etc. 



> My point is that the above danes are all beautiful examples of the great dane's coat of many colors. Nick and I have decided that our next dog will likely be a dane (with a few more breeds in consideration) and, because I want to show my dane, I am very limited in color choices. I would love a brindlequin or a chocolate.


So...get a conforming coat color that has been produced by crossing the color families. The problem is very few quality dogs are used in this way, and well bred fawnequins are something people wait YEARS to obtain. Behind the scenes, most show people are in love with the mismarks but can't admit it openly wanting one. Its easy to find a dog bred from crossing the color families...but will the puppy grow up to be a well conforming example of the breed? Chances are no because the dogs typically used aren't "show worthy" 



> Anyhow... I have thought about it for years now and, to me, it just doesn't make sense... A chocolate dane isn't any less healthy than a fawn dane. And being a chocolate color doesn't make Mousse any less of a dane. A dane is a dane is a dane. I can understand discouraging certain colors in certain breeds like double dapples/double dilutes for health reasons but being something like a fawnequin does not make it any less of a dane.


It doesn't make any sense. The only health problems that are caused directly to pigment in Danes is in the case of double merles (whites typically) and the factor of the piebald gene. Ironically enough, the breedings that produce these defects are ALLOWED and commonly done. Breeding harlequins to harlequins is a big no no because you end up with double merles, but show breeders do these crosses all the time to get more showable harls. Baffling. 

Health is certainly not the reason why the color families exist. Its for the ease of predicting coat color of progeny. 



twoisplenty said:


> Something outside of the breed has been introduced to get those colours. Thats why they are not allowed in the ring.


This isn't true for Danes. Coat color genes like chocolate and tan point are recessive in Danes, but have been so strongly bred AGAINST that they are very rare. Why would breeders choose to breed for these colors if they haven't been allowed in the show ring since the 60's? If they had been allowed in the show ring for the past 50 years they would be as common as a fawn or black Dane. 

There have also been rumors that chocolate Danes have the potential to become a showable color if they can breed true for 6 generations.




Caty M said:


> Not much in dog showing makes a whole lot of sense. It's all looks, no temperament. In a dog show's eyes, who cares if a border collie can herd sheep, as long as it is exactly the "right" size and has nice markings. You look at the amazing dogs who actually DO those jobs, the REAL collies, and their looks are all over the map.. breeds did just fine before the onset of showing, and now we are seeing dogs suffering debilitating health problems. Using border collies again, a dog who had hip dysplasia and couldn't herd all day would not be bred from, and the genes not passed on. Not true nowadays! Dog showing has done nothing positive for dogs and dog breeds.


I agree with you. So many times looks overcome function in the show world. There needs to be a happy medium, and I'm glad that Danes are a breed that haven't been "ruined" by the show world like English Bulldogs or GSDs. A well conforming Dane can still preform, move, and function the way they are meant to now-a-days (not to many boar hunters that I know of LOL). I want a Dane to win CH titles because THEY earned it, not the person handling the dog, not because the judge was being nice, not because the dog has a $100K campaign behind it...because they are the best conforming REGARDLESS of coat color. It is possible but it would mean a whole different way of doing dog shows. We would have to take human error out of the equation. 

The more I think about it, the more it can be compared to health testing options for hips. There's OFA and PennHip tests. PennHip is 100% accurate because its based on exact numbers that are calculated by computers. OFA is not as accurate because it relies on human interpretation. One person can say a dog's hips are excellent while another can say its fair...who's right? Maybe someday someone will create computerized dog show judges that can't choose a dog because they are close to the handler, etc.


----------



## Sprocket

I'd love to have a brindle harlequin Dane like Zuri. Chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream anyone? 

I think that color is so interesting to look at, such depth.


----------



## CorgiPaws

twoisplenty said:


> Something outside of the breed has been introduced to get those colours. Thats why they are not allowed in the ring.


I have 5 Danes. All of them are different colors. 
Mousse- Chocolate w/ White
Zailey- Mantle Merle (mismarked)
Braxton- Onyx (revere) Brindle
Timber- Fawn Merle
Kola- Chocolate Merle. 


















Natalie has touched on a lot of why there are the color families- and why they don't make sense, but one of the major points I see: we have damn near perfected Danes in these colors, isn't it about time we work on improving the OTHER 100+ color variations with danes? One of the biggest gripes that fanciers of these non-showable Danes has is the lack of ethical breeders producing them. Many times they are sold like novelties, or labeled "rare" which is not the case at all. Breeders like this don't give a second thought to conformation OR, more importantly, health testing. It's sad. I hope that changes. I'm not ignorant, I know my dogs flaws. Kola particularly has the weakest conformation of my pack but you know what- it's a starting point. If we NEVER improve the lines outside of the very tiny show-dog gene pool, I fear for the breed's future. 

I worry for what conformation showing might do for one of my heart breeds: the Boxer. Pugs were not so exaggerated BEFORE showing, but fads like exaggerated traits can ruin dogs so fast, the Boxer could be next for all we know. 

To hell with Conformation showing. It's done more harm than good. It's ruined more breeds than it's saved. Until they actually make it about the welfare of the dogs, I'm just not on board. (Granted, I do think that it holds merit for SOME breeds... you know, the ones it's actually not destroying.)


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Caty M said:


> Not much in dog showing makes a whole lot of sense. It's all looks, no temperament. In a dog show's eyes, who cares if a border collie can herd sheep, as long as it is exactly the "right" size and has nice markings. You look at the amazing dogs who actually DO those jobs, the REAL collies, and their looks are all over the map.. breeds did just fine before the onset of showing, and now we are seeing dogs suffering debilitating health problems. Using border collies again, a dog who had hip dysplasia and couldn't herd all day would not be bred from, and the genes not passed on. Not true nowadays! Dog showing has done nothing positive for dogs and dog breeds.


I agree to a point. I think they do great things as far as creating awareness for various breeds but most aspects of showing need to seriously be reconsidered and fixed. I can't remember what country it was but I was hearing about one that requires a dog to have a title in whatever job it was bred for before it can enter the show ring. I don't know if that was just wishful thinking but it sounds like a good idea to me. Obviously it wouldn't work for all breeds since some weren't bred for a real working purpose (such as the toy dogs) and some of them just don't do that job anymore because there is no use for it but I do think that, with some thinking, something could make up the requirements for out of a job working breeds.

That's why I could never get into all of the politics of dog showing. I'm doing it for fun with Buck. I love the atmosphere and talking to like minded people, seeing the other dogs, and meeting people interested in my own breed. Showing will always be, for Buck and I, something he and I can do together. I could never own and show something like a GSD. I don't think I will ever touch the breeds that have been ruined by showing unless I have devised a way to worm better standards back into the mix. I would especially like to see something done for the neapolitan mastiff.



DaneMama said:


> It's because it creates the three "color families" within the Dane breed:
> 
> Fawn/Brindle
> Harlequin/Mantle
> Black/Blue
> 
> This creates three very distinct gene pools within the breed as cross color breeding is not done often because it produces mismarks. Mismarks only produce more mismarks in the long run. A color pure line is crossed with another to freshen genetics and to strengthen a desired trait in the line, like fawns/brindles bred to a harl to increase conformation to the standard for harlequin color family dogs. Because of this a fawnequin can show up 6 generations later if the right breeding takes place (black to a harl, etc).
> 
> Each color family is becoming so narrow in genetics its not a good thing. Its called a "bottleneck effect" in population genetics, but in this case the bottleneck is human choice. The GDCA (Great Dane Club of America) has for so long placed the color code strictly for breeding and showing, that most dogs within a color family share many common genes. I think a big reason why the color families were chosen so long ago is because the potential outcomes from each breeding is pretty predictable. Breeders know that if they breed fawn X fawn, they will only get fawn. Breeders know if they breed harlequin X mantle (depending on what each dog carries- harlequin genetics is VERY complicated!) that they will get harls, mantles, and merles in each pattern. Predictability in puppy coat color is what I think drove the decision to cut off the color families from one another. Like you said, there are 100's of color combinations in the Great Dane that occur naturally...but its hard to have a coat color standard to structure around them all. Since coat color is included in the Great Dane standard, they have to be limited. Does this mean that there SHOULD be a limitation on coat color within the Dane breed?
> 
> In my opinion. NO. There is nothing wrong with breeding a well conforming harlequin to a well conforming brindle, as they will produce puppies that are still within the coat color standard, and can still be shown. What's there to gain? More genetic diversity within the breed as a whole. There has been rumor that Danes may be added to the hound group for showing, and if so, the coat color standard would go out the window. I will be very happy the moment this happens!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chime in :wink:
> 
> Timber is a fawn merle. Kola is a chocolate merle. Merle is a coat color PATTERN, not a specific color. So, you can have all kinds of merles...brindle, fawn, blue fawn, blue, chocolate etc.
> 
> 
> 
> So...get a conforming coat color that has been produced by crossing the color families. The problem is very few quality dogs are used in this way, and well bred fawnequins are something people wait YEARS to obtain. Behind the scenes, most show people are in love with the mismarks but can't admit it openly wanting one. Its easy to find a dog bred from crossing the color families...but will the puppy grow up to be a well conforming example of the breed? Chances are no because the dogs typically used aren't "show worthy"
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't make any sense. The only health problems that are caused directly to pigment in Danes is in the case of double merles (whites typically) and the factor of the piebald gene. Ironically enough, the breedings that produce these defects are ALLOWED and commonly done. Breeding harlequins to harlequins is a big no no because you end up with double merles, but show breeders do these crosses all the time to get more showable harls. Baffling.
> 
> Health is certainly not the reason why the color families exist. Its for the ease of predicting coat color of progeny.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't true for Danes. Coat color genes like chocolate and tan point are recessive in Danes, but have been so strongly bred AGAINST that they are very rare. Why would breeders choose to breed for these colors if they haven't been allowed in the show ring since the 60's? If they had been allowed in the show ring for the past 50 years they would be as common as a fawn or black Dane.
> 
> There have also been rumors that chocolate Danes have the potential to become a showable color if they can breed true for 6 generations.


I knew about the color families. I just never understood why. Honestly, the saying we have for horses "A good horse is never a bad color" should hold true for dogs as well with the exception of the double dilutes. As they say, there's an exception for every rule. I too would be ecstatic to see the dane added to the hound group and the coat color standards gone! How awesome would it be to see a chocolate merle mixed in the ring with the fawns and harlequins?

I knew that about merle being a pattern. It's like paint patterns in horses: Overo, tobiano, tovero, splash, etc. Thanks for correcting me  I knew she wasn't a fawnequin... I don't know where that came from. And I was lost on Kola!

It's a shame that the breeding practices with harls are acceptable. I knew that it happened and I will never understand why but I didn't know if maybe there were other things like that with other coat colors that had a hand in why those coat colors are frowned upon in the show world. I would absolutely love to see chocolates added if danes aren't moved to the hound group first!



PuppyPaws said:


> I have 5 Danes. All of them are different colors.
> 
> Natalie has touched on a lot of why there are the color families- and why they don't make sense, but one of the major points I see: we have damn near perfected Danes in these colors, isn't it about time we work on improving the OTHER 100+ color variations with danes? One of the biggest gripes that fanciers of these non-showable Danes has is the lack of ethical breeders producing them. Many times they are sold like novelties, or labeled "rare" which is not the case at all. Breeders like this don't give a second thought to conformation OR, more importantly, health testing. It's sad. I hope that changes. I'm not ignorant, I know my dogs flaws. Kola particularly has the weakest conformation of my pack but you know what- it's a starting point. If we NEVER improve the lines outside of the very tiny show-dog gene pool, I fear for the breed's future.
> 
> I worry for what conformation showing might do for one of my heart breeds: the Boxer. Pugs were not so exaggerated BEFORE showing, but fads like exaggerated traits can ruin dogs so fast, the Boxer could be next for all we know.
> 
> To hell with Conformation showing. It's done more harm than good. It's ruined more breeds than it's saved. Until they actually make it about the welfare of the dogs, I'm just not on board. (Granted, I do think that it holds merit for SOME breeds... you know, the ones it's actually not destroying.)


I agree 100% with you about moving on to the unperfected colors. You have a bunch of imperfect colors... Get to work! Hahaha. Make us some perfected danes in a variety of colors! I love the colors of your pack. I would love to see those colors become acceptable. We were actually a the dog park the other day when a two dane owners came in. One had 3 danes, a black and two harls, that she showed with (2 were championed already and the other was a much younger dog) and the other owner had a mismarked merle mantle. The show owner commented on how well built the merle was and how he was nearly perfect conformation wise but she had to add "It's just too bad he's a terrible color". She had a snarky attitude about it too. If I had to choose the best looking dog out of the four it would have been the merle.


----------



## xellil

PuppyPaws said:


> To hell with Conformation showing. It's done more harm than good. It's ruined more breeds than it's saved. Until they actually make it about the welfare of the dogs, I'm just not on board. (Granted, I do think that it holds merit for SOME breeds... you know, the ones it's actually not destroying.)


i have long thought a dog should be proven healthy and a winner in whatever area of performance it is bred for before it could enter conformation shows. I think that would cut out alot of the exaggerated and deformed breeds we see today. I know Great Danes couldn't really hunt boar, but they could develop a substitute to show the traits. 

I've only had one Great Dane - a black one - someone dumped him on the road by my house. He had really bad hip dysplasia, and he was retarded. Obviously there was someone around there that was not breeding for heath. But he was such a sweet dog.


----------



## xellil

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> The show owner commented on how well built the merle was and how he was nearly perfect conformation wise but she had to add "It's just too bad he's a terrible color". She had a snarky attitude about it too. If I had to choose the best looking dog out of the four it would have been the merle.


You gotta love snooty dog owners. Pth. And i really like the good horse is never a bad color. I've not heard that before.


----------



## NewYorkDogue

*"Form Follows Function"*

“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.”
~ Louis Sullivan (19th Century Architect)

I would be ecstatic if this truth were ever to be incorporated into the world of dog breeding/showing. In the beginning, perhaps it was. Now, not so much. And it worries me...


----------



## danecolor

i am not up on the color politics of all different breeds, but great dane color is something i have spent a lot of time learning about.

some of the major misconceptions about the unshowable colors:

1. They were introduced into the breed through crossbreeding 
2. These colors wouldn't occur if people stopped breeding for them
3. They are less healthy because of their color
4. They are recent "fad" colors

in truth, these colors were all present (from chocolate, to tan points, to brindlequin) at the breed's origins. at the first show in 1886, great danes were divided into the broad color groups of "solid," "striped," and "spotted" to be judged. colors all across the board were shown and received their championships. even up until 1971, a chocolate brindle was shown in America. she was eventually disqualified because her nose was brown instead of black like a normal brindle, but she had done very well in shows up until that point. so, in fact, "mismark" colors are not a recent fad and not due to crossbreeding 

additionally, most of the unaccepted colors occurring in the great dane can "hide" in a pedigree. they can be passed as a recessive gene for generations without being seen in progeny. they will only emerge when paired with another dog carrying the recessive gene. for this reason, it is incredibly hard to ever completely eliminate many of these colors. in fact, merles occur in virtually every harlequin breeding and are impossible to eliminate as long as harlequins are bred.

as far as health, there are only two color-related ailments in great danes. the first is color dilution alopecia, which can occur in any blue or dilute-chocolate (fawn in dobermans/the "silver" weimaraner color) dog. the incidence of this condition is extremely high in some breeds such as the doberman, but can be easily avoided by not breeding dogs who show signs of the condition. in weimaraners, for example, color dilution alopecia is extremely rare, even though their entire breed is made up of dilute-chocolate dogs. since blue great danes are already an accepted color, there is no basis for keeping dilute-chocolate danes out of the standard based on health issues alone.

the second health-related issue comes from two copies of the merle gene, and is worsened by the addition of the harlequin gene. these double-merle harlequin dogs are white and almost always have sensory deficits. however, they only occur from breeding harlequin to harlequin, which is actually an accepted practice in the breed today. breeding merle to merle creates double-merle "merlequin" dogs, and while these can suffer from sensory defects, sensory issues are much less common in merlequins than in whites/double-merle harlequins. sensory defects can easily be avoided by simply avoiding breeding harlequin to harlequin, merle to merle, or harlequin to merle. yet again, this color related issue should do nothing to stop the addition of more colors to the standard.

honestly, in my mind, there is no reason not to expand the color standard in the great dane. however, until there are more ethical breeders producing the unaccepted colors, i personally will not purchase an off-colored dane unless it is from rescue.


----------



## DaneMama

One thing that seems like common sense to me is required health testing to be entered into the show ring, especially since there are preliminary tests available for younger dogs. A lot of dogs are health tested who are shown but a lot are not. It should be mandatory.


----------



## luvMyBRT

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I suppose THAT one kind of makes sense since it is a BLACK Russian Terrier. Hahaha. But really, I especially like the last 2 with my favorite being picture 4. Black looks best but I wouldn't hesitate to get the wheaton/white or that last fellow you pictured.


I agree. Kinda makes sense that the dog be black since it's in the breed name! LOL. But if they ever allow the off colors to be shown in AKC they would have to change the name I'd think. While I also love the black, I'd love to own an off colored BRT as well....wouldn't mind owning an "off" colored Dane either! :biggrin:


----------



## BrownieM

Caty M said:


> Not much in dog showing makes a whole lot of sense. It's all looks, no temperament. In a dog show's eyes, who cares if a border collie can herd sheep, as long as it is exactly the "right" size and has nice markings. You look at the amazing dogs who actually DO those jobs, the REAL collies, and their looks are all over the map.. breeds did just fine before the onset of showing, and now we are seeing dogs suffering debilitating health problems. Using border collies again, a dog who had hip dysplasia and couldn't herd all day would not be bred from, and the genes not passed on. Not true nowadays! Dog showing has done nothing positive for dogs and dog breeds.


Wow, I am sorry but I could not disagree more. Temperament is extremely important when showing a dog. Temperament is part of 'type' when assessing the dog in the ring. How can *you*, who I take has *never been involved in showing dogs*, say that showing has done nothing for dog breeds? That is an awfully closed minded, broad statement without much validity.

Hate to burst your bubble, but every breed has a *standard*. Showing in conformation proves that they meet that breed standard, thus suggesting that in one aspect, they are a candidate to be bred. Of course, there are other aspects that need to be considered, such as drive, health, temperament, etc.

Think performance events. What exactly is stopping you (general you) from doing herding with your border collie, showing in conformation, etc. to prove they are a dynamic dog? In poodles there is a versatility in poodles award where they are awarded for not only being physically to standard, but for having excelled in multiple performance events as well. I am certain that other breeds offer such awards.

Let me take you through an example of what I have gone through with my standard poodle whom has already shown to his championship. First, I chose parents from a health tested line who were free of genetic diseases and other health issues to date, with 30 years behind them of health testing. I also made sure that all of these parents were champions and met the breed standard. Then, I visited the breeder to ensure the parents had the temperament I liked, the looks I liked, and to ensure they had been raised in an environment I like. I also checked out my boy, who at the time was already 6 months old. Yes, loved his looks, and his temperament. Then, before showing him, I did some health testing. I prelim'd his hips and CERFd his eyes. I have completed his genetic testing, and he is clear of those diseases. Now, I know that he is a healthy boy to begin with so I showed him to prove that he meets the breed standard. This also increases awareness of my dog, which is a GOOD thing as one entire side of his pedigree is European, thus he offers genetic diversity. 

So please, tell me how this single act that I have done has not helped my breed?


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> Wow, I am sorry but I could not disagree more. Temperament is extremely important when showing a dog. Temperament is part of 'type' when assessing the dog in the ring. How can *you*, who I take has *never been involved in showing dogs*, say that showing has done nothing for dog breeds? That is an awfully closed minded, broad statement without much validity.
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble, but every breed has a *standard*. Showing in conformation proves that they meet that breed standard, thus suggesting that in one aspect, they are a candidate to be bred. Of course, there are other aspects that need to be considered, such as drive, health, temperament, etc.
> 
> Think performance events. What exactly is stopping you (general you) from doing herding with your border collie, showing in conformation, etc. to prove they are a dynamic dog? In poodles there is a versatility in poodles award where they are awarded for not only being physically to standard, but for having excelled in multiple performance events as well. I am certain that other breeds offer such awards.



I think that showing in conformation effects all breeds differently and not all for the better. 
I know nothing about poodles. Maybe showing hasn't hurt them at all. 

If showing was really just about breed standard then two dogs going head-to-head at several shows would have the same winner every time. 
This doesn't happen. 
Judges have favorites. Favorite dogs, favorite handlers, favorite breeders. That comes into play. It shouldn't. Different judges are forgiving of different traits. If only I could count the times I've seen/heard breeders follow a particular judge that tend to overlook certain traits. 
Conformation showing has nothing to do with health. A dog should NOT have a Ch. without health testing. 
I've also met quite a few show dogs, and in this I'm talking mostly Boxers, Danes, and Corgis as they're the only dogs I've ever cared enough to MEET at a show, that really do NOT have good personalities. Plenty of them were CH. 
I really thought I'd get into showing. It looked like fun. 
The more I learned about it, the more I hate it. It really has nothing to do with the dogs.

Yes, every breed has a standard. What you have to ask yourself: is the standard right? Many times, the answer is no. 

The AKC CH pug I pet in a PetCo in Denver could hardly breathe. Showing did a whole lot of good for him, huh?


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> I think that showing in conformation effects all breeds differently and not all for the better.
> I know nothing about poodles. Maybe showing hasn't hurt them at all.
> 
> If showing was really just about breed standard then two dogs going head-to-head at several shows would have the same winner every time.
> This doesn't happen.
> Judges have favorites. Favorite dogs, favorite handlers, favorite breeders. That comes into play. It shouldn't. Different judges are forgiving of different traits. If only I could count the times I've seen/heard breeders follow a particular judge that tend to overlook certain traits.
> Conformation showing has nothing to do with health. A dog should NOT have a Ch. without health testing.
> I've also met quite a few show dogs, and in this I'm talking mostly Boxers, Danes, and Corgis as they're the only dogs I've ever cared enough to MEET at a show, that really do NOT have good personalities. Plenty of them were CH.
> I really thought I'd get into showing. It looked like fun.
> The more I learned about it, the more I hate it. It really has nothing to do with the dogs.
> 
> Yes, every breed has a standard. What you have to ask yourself: is the standard right? Many times, the answer is no.
> 
> The AKC CH pug I pet in a PetCo in Denver could hardly breathe. Showing did a whole lot of good for him, huh?


I would never deny that there are aspects of conformation showing that are less than admirable or desirable. I am simply saying that to say dog shows have done nothing for dogs or dog breeds is an awfully GENERAL, strong (false) statement.

If you think it would be fun (which it is), why not go into showing and make a difference? Show a beautiful, healthy dog with a fabulous temperament. Show the whole package. That is a much better dog than a dog with a crappy temperament and lots of looks. That would be giving back to the breed in a major way.


I won't even go into breeds that have standards that don't allow them to breathe properly.

Showing is not for everyone, and I understand that. But show bashing? Saying it does nothing for dogs? I don't understand. CatyM, I would reasonably assume, does not have knowledge of every single dog breed and what showing has done for those breeds. If she has a problem with one breed in particular and would like to express one side of the story/her side of the story, that is different from saying that showing has done nothing for DOGS.

There are an awful lot of people who are devoted to bettering their breed, COUNTERING the harm that some who show AKC have done by breeding exaggerated, extreme dogs, and INSTEAD breeding truly healthy, temperamentally sound, TOTAL DOGS, who also happen to meet the breed standard.


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> I would never deny that there are aspects of conformation showing that are less than admirable or desirable. I am simply saying that to say dog shows have done nothing for dogs or dog breeds is an awfully GENERAL, strong (false) statement.
> 
> If you think it would be fun (which it is), why not go into showing and make a difference? Show a beautiful, healthy dog with a fabulous temperament. Show the whole package. That is a much better dog than a dog with a crappy temperament and lots of looks. That would be giving back to the breed in a major way.
> 
> 
> I won't even go into breeds that have standards that don't allow them to breathe properly.
> 
> Showing is not for everyone, and I understand that. But show bashing? Saying it does nothing for dogs? I don't understand. CatyM, I would reasonably assume, does not have knowledge of every single dog breed and what showing has done for those breeds. If she has a problem with one breed in particular and would like to express one side of the story/her side of the story, that is different from saying that showing has done nothing for DOGS.
> 
> There are an awful lot of people who are devoted to bettering their breed, COUNTERING the harm that some who show AKC have done by breeding exaggerated, extreme dogs, and breeding truly healthy, temperamentally sound, TOTAL DOGS, who also happen to meet the breed standard.


I think that whatever your breed of choice is, completely influences your view on showing. 

As said, I know nothing of Poodles. 
But, showing has hurt two of the three breeds I love. So.....


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> I think that whatever your breed of choice is, completely influences your view on showing.
> 
> As said, I know nothing of Poodles.
> But, showing has hurt two of the three breeds I love. So.....


Which is understandable, but the appropriate view would be that showing has hurt the breeds that you care about. Not that showing has done nothing for DOGS.

In poodles, there is always a 'fad', whether it be extreme rear angulation, extremely short backed, very narrow head, feet must be perfect, etc. Some breeders lose sight of what is important and other aspects of the overall poodles fail because the breeders only focus on breeding for one or two specific, and possibly exaggerated to a fault, aspects. 

BUT, there are always the breeders who are trying to counteract that. Who are purposely breeding against the fad, and trying to breed dogs that are not so extreme as to go against what they were initially bred to do (retrieve). To breed dogs first for health, then temperament, then structure and last, beauty. And still, they show these dogs to their championship. While still complaining about all of the overdone poodles who lack everything but exaggerated beauty.

So has showing hurt my breed of choice? I would not say that. I would say that the breeders who want beauty and exaggeration have hurt the breed. But, the breeders (who also show) who want temperamentally sound, structurally sound, healthy dogs, who hopefully have looks going along with, have benefited greatly to the breed.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

BrownieM said:


> Wow, I am sorry but I could not disagree more. Temperament is extremely important when showing a dog. Temperament is part of 'type' when assessing the dog in the ring. How can *you*, who I take has *never been involved in showing dogs*, say that showing has done nothing for dog breeds? That is an awfully closed minded, broad statement without much validity.
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble, but every breed has a *standard*. Showing in conformation proves that they meet that breed standard, thus suggesting that in one aspect, they are a candidate to be bred. Of course, there are other aspects that need to be considered, such as drive, health, temperament, etc.
> 
> Think performance events. What exactly is stopping you (general you) from doing herding with your border collie, showing in conformation, etc. to prove they are a dynamic dog? In poodles there is a versatility in poodles award where they are awarded for not only being physically to standard, but for having excelled in multiple performance events as well. I am certain that other breeds offer such awards.
> 
> Let me take you through an example of what I have gone through with my standard poodle whom has already shown to his championship. First, I chose parents from a health tested line who were free of genetic diseases and other health issues to date, with 30 years behind them of health testing. I also made sure that all of these parents were champions and met the breed standard. Then, I visited the breeder to ensure the parents had the temperament I liked, the looks I liked, and to ensure they had been raised in an environment I like. I also checked out my boy, who at the time was already 6 months old. Yes, loved his looks, and his temperament. Then, before showing him, I did some health testing. I prelim'd his hips and CERFd his eyes. I have completed his genetic testing, and he is clear of those diseases. Now, I know that he is a healthy boy to begin with so I showed him to prove that he meets the breed standard. This also increases awareness of my dog, which is a GOOD thing as one entire side of his pedigree is European, thus he offers genetic diversity.
> 
> So please, tell me how this single act that I have done has not helped my breed?


Before I say anything else, let me say that I have experience in the show ring and plan to gain more with Buck starting next month. I am not at all against conformation shows but I balance on a fine line between showing harming dogs and helping dogs. 

Temperament has nothing to do with showing. How much can a judge really gauge a dog's temperament from 2 minutes? All a dog has to know is how to act in the ring. Heck, Buck is a perfect gentleman at the dog park but at PetSmart he is completely different. Two atmospheres, two different ways to behave. Just because you can get a dog to behave in the ring does not mean that it has the perfect temperament for the breed. 

Then, as far as breeding and standards, winning doesn't mean $*^%. Look at GSDs and neapolitan mastiffs... Show line GSDs that win in the ring have horrible sloping backs that result in a dog who's back legs wobble when he walks and will probably end up with bad hips. Show line neos have a hard time even trotting next to their handler. Most of them look like a leg or two has popped out of the socket. They have so much skin on their heads, faces, and necks that some of them, in order to see, have to toss their head back to get the skin out of the way. English Bulldogs... Most of them suffer from breathing issues and they are not a breed that can exert energy without quickly wearing out. These dogs win. These dogs are built to standard. How is that standard helping them? It isn't. They are suffering. 

Some breeds, like the poodle, and the coonhound, are fine. But others are not. One feature that people like is taken and exaggerated to a point where it is unhealthy for the dog. 

"Showing in conformation proves that they meet breed standard, thus suggesting that in one aspect, they are a candidate to be bred."

Yes, that is good for a lot of breeds but not at all good for others. Someone posted a video of an apricot colored neo dog who was considered a great example of a neo... The dog looked terrible. And sadly, that is what most neos look like. Why? Why on earth do they look like that??? They used to look much more like a cane corso. Neos were war dogs. They accompanied troops to battle. A modern neo could never do that. It would get a half mile in and collapse... but that is a dog "built to standard".

I love dog showing but many aspects of it need to be reassessed and changed for the sake of breeds like the neo, the pug, the english bulldog, and the GSD.


----------



## CorgiPaws

I've never found a breeder I agree with 150% I've learned to just respect that everyon'e research leads them to different conclusions on different hot topics. But, I think wether you're going with the current or against it, you need to be able to back up with WHY. Why do/don't you show. Why do/don't you vaccinate.Why do your puppies go home at the age they do? 

I think I'd have MORE respect for someone who has completely different breeding practices than I do, but can say "This is WHY I do it, this is WHY I think it's best, and this is HOW I got to that conclusion." Than one I agreed with that really couldn't back up their sh**.

I honestly don't think the focus of every breeding program needs to include conformation showing, BUT every breeding program ought to have a purpose in which the breeder can say what they are doing to work towards that goal, and it should NEVER include high volumes of puppies, or money.


----------



## DaneMama

If I had to guess, I think that showing dogs has hurt more breeds than helped them overall. Especially when it comes to genetic diversity. Maybe not all breeds are to the point of extremes like English bulldogs, GSD, Cavies, Pugs, Dalmations, etc, etc...but which breeds are so heavily inbred that things will pop up in the next 10 years? Chinese Crested's are notorious for eye problems because no one though CERF exams were needed. Now that they are so heavily inbred, nearly all CCs over the age of 7 are blind. Nothing will bring that breed back other than outcrossing to another relatively close breed. But of course, blood lines must remain pure so this wont happen. Such a shame.


----------



## Huginn

DaneMama said:


> If I had to guess, I think that showing dogs has hurt more breeds than helped them overall. * Especially when it comes to genetic diversity*. Maybe not all breeds are to the point of extremes like English bulldogs, GSD, Cavies, Pugs, Dalmations, etc, etc...but which breeds are so heavily inbred that things will pop up in the next 10 years? Chinese Crested's are notorious for eye problems because no one though CERF exams were needed. Now that they are so heavily inbred, nearly all CCs over the age of 7 are blind. Nothing will bring that breed back other than outcrossing to another relatively close breed. But of course, blood lines must remain pure so this wont happen. Such a shame.


To me this is the biggest thing. There has been such a limit on quality dogs that I have the seen the quality of health of many breeds fall drastically, even in the 24 years I have been on this earth. Yes, I am not familiar with all breeds, but I have seen SO MANY look just miles apart from the breeds I grew up with. Most, have nothing positive to show for it, yes you have a pretty dog, but how many genetic diseases have you increased the risk of? Genetic testing has helped with this, but not cured it. There are so many people who just think that genetic testing and certification is just a gimmick to get more money out of a naive buyer that these diseases still run like crazy. Then you have to throw in the others who simply don't care, because the dog is correct conformation wise why shouldnt he be bred? This reason is why I mostly agree with the spay/neuter clause in most contracts. There are those of us who will be responsible and only breed a dog who has proven that he/she is worthy, but how many others will breed for money? The sad answer is that they outnumber us responsible people. 

On a separate (but slightly related) note, I was recently looking up some pictures of AKC confo champ BCs vs ABCA herding champs and the difference is so ridiculous. This is one breed that having confo showing/standard being detrimental to a breed is true. Most of the AKC confo dogs could not work livestock if their life depended on it and most ABCA herding dogs could not win in a confo ring. I'm really on the fence about this, I agree with a confo standard, but one that promotes working ability of ANY breed. I think this is something people will always bee divided on. The only thing that I can really say is that standards need to be re-evaluated to allow more variation in the breed to increase the amount of genetic diversity. Seriously, more gene flow is needed. These bottlenecks all but wipe out wild populations on a regular basis . . .


----------



## DaneMama

Horses, dogs and people have the most genetic disorders than any other species. All three species have been more inbred than any others. I don't care what fancy terms breeders use to cover up the fact that inbreeding is a "tool" they use, inbreeding in any form is not good. I understand that the simple act of inbreeding produced all the breeds we know and love but why continue to do so? I just don't get it.


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaneMama said:


> Horses, dogs and people have the most genetic disorders than any other species. All three species have been more inbred than any others. I don't care what fancy terms breeders use to cover up the fact that inbreeding is a "tool" they use, inbreeding in any form is not good. I understand that the simple act of inbreeding produced all the breeds we know and love but why continue to do so? I just don't get it.


Don't you know that there are not enough dogs in the world to choose from??

Sarcastic, obviously. 


breederfail.


----------



## Sprocket

DaneMama said:


> Horses, dogs and people have the most genetic disorders than any other species. All three species have been more inbred than any others. I don't care what fancy terms breeders use to cover up the fact that inbreeding is a "tool" they use, inbreeding in any form is not good. I understand that the simple act of inbreeding produced all the breeds we know and love but why continue to do so? I just don't get it.


Ssshhhhh! It's not "inbreeding", it's "LINE breeding".

Inbreeding is when it doesn't work and line breeding is when it does.


At least thats what the breeders claim :tongue:


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

I always wondered how they could possibly have a different meaning for the two... It's the same thing.


----------



## BrownieM

I agree with what everyone is saying. I have a major issue with CatyM's so bold statement as to say that showing dogs has done nothing for DOGS.

In my breed, the standard poses no problems for poodles. It is the structure of a dog designed to work: to retrieve in water. There is nothing exaggerated about a poodle's conformation as dictated by the standard. Breeding to the standard for poodles, and I can think of many other breeds, does not harm the dog.

In poodles, it is the breeders who take on aspect of the standard and exaggerate it to a fault. The standard says the stifle should be well bent and they breed an overangulated rear that you never would see in a poodle that was truly working. Or they read the standard where it says the dog should be short in the loin, and they breed a dog that has such a short back, a) it never could have realistically could have swam and, b) it cannot move without tripping over itself.

So, by going back to the standard and breeding and showing what is CORRECT rather than what is fashionable in the show ring, one can improve the breed by showing. Yes, some judges go for fancy, but in general, there is a standard, and those who meet the standard will win more consistently. There are other breeds just like this, with breeders who recognize the faults of those who are breeding for what is 'flashy' in the ring, and breed what is correct and healthy for the dog.

And to the poster who said that temperament cannot be assessed in the show ring. This is false. I can think of several dogs who have been unable to attain their championship due to their temperament. A poodle has a dictated temperament in their breed standard, which becomes part if their 'type'. Yes, there are other aspects of temperament, but a good breeder will not breed a dog with a poor temperament.

And again, for breeds that have standards that are harmful to the dog, well, that is an issue with the parent club. I would not even begin to know anything about that as my breed has a functional standard.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

Huginn said:


> On a separate (but slightly related) note, I was recently looking up some pictures of AKC confo champ BCs vs ABCA herding champs and the difference is so ridiculous. This is one breed that having confo showing/standard being detrimental to a breed is true. Most of the AKC confo dogs could not work livestock if their life depended on it and most ABCA herding dogs could not win in a confo ring. I'm really on the fence about this, I agree with a confo standard, but one that promotes working ability of ANY breed. I think this is something people will always bee divided on. The only thing that I can really say is that standards need to be re-evaluated to allow more variation in the breed to increase the amount of genetic diversity. Seriously, more gene flow is needed. These bottlenecks all but wipe out wild populations on a regular basis . . .


YEP...and THAT is exactly what I was saying when we were talking about AKC only BCs compared to ABCA only or ABCA/AKC Border Collies!!:wink:


----------



## meggels

I have a show quality french fry. And he probably would have done amazing in the ring. I love watching him move, he's beautiful. He floats, unlike a lot of frenchies.

He comes from champion parents with health testing done. He was supposed to be shown and bred.


And the little guy has subluxated patellas on both back legs  How that happened...I dunno.


----------



## DaneMama

Health testing doesn't guarantee that every puppy will end up disease free. And bad patellas are common in squishy faced dogs...there are no guarantees when it comes to breeding.


----------



## meggels

DaneMama said:


> Health testing doesn't guarantee that every puppy will end up disease free. And bad patellas are common in squishy faced dogs...there are no guarantees when it comes to breeding.



Right. Just goes to show that you can try to do everything right, and still end up with a problem lol. I was really diligent in finding a frenchie cause I know they have problems to begin with. I took Murph on knowing he had bad patellas and that's why he was being retired at the ripe old age of 8 months from the show ring lol. But I saw that face and was in love. 



And how come smushy faced dogs are prone to them? Never heard that.


----------



## Caty M

I take a day off posting and look what happens.. :heh:

Maybe what I said was a GENERALIZED view. There are many great breeders out there that are actively working to breed out problems in breeds. I still do not think dog showing has really done anything positive for breeds, with the exception of saving some breeds from extinction. There are so many breeds that have so little genetic variation that they are all more related than brother and sister. The cesky terrier for one. After the viszla won crufts he then went on to sire more than 1/3 of litters of the viszla that year in the UK. Do you really think that's a good thing, to rely on one dog, even if he is amazing conformationally? He had good hips but many of his offspring did not. 

There are standards yes, but apparently they are not set in stone since many, I'd say even the majority, of breeds have changed looks in the last 100 years. Not even the extreme brachy breeds and large breeds, but even ones like labs. They are getting heavier and heavier set. I pointed out to a lab shower friend that I know that the so called founder of the breed looked like a field bred lab, not show bred and was lighter, she basically closed her eyes and refused to believe it, and that her labs are the 'true labs' since they have won shows. Never mind that my Italian greyhound can fetch better than they can.

Btw, I do own two pure-bred dogs.


----------



## NewYorkDogue

DaneMama said:


> Health testing doesn't guarantee that every puppy will end up disease free. And bad patellas are common in squishy faced dogs...there are no guarantees when it comes to breeding.


I remember talking with a Lab breeder (whom I eventually got my lab puppy from) at Westminster many years ago who was probably the most straight-forward, down-to-earth breeder I have met. He told me that any breeder who swears to you that a pup from their litter will never ever get hip dysplasia (sp?)-- or any other genetic fault-- is lying. There are no absolute guarantees. The breeder can do all that they can do, but there is always the chance for inherent genetic issues to arise.

Also, I know a woman who has owned Golden Retrievers. The first one swam, retrieved and pretty much acted out his genetic potential. The one she has now, from bench/show stock has no interest in either. And the thing is, he literally walks around as if he were in a show ring: head held high, smooth gait, and very "show-y." He's a gorgeous dog, and a good animal companion for her, but it's kind of baffling that he seems to have inherently picked up these behaviors from his genetic background, since he's never step foot in a show ring...


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

BrownieM said:


> And to the poster who said that temperament cannot be assessed in the show ring. This is false. I can think of several dogs who have been unable to attain their championship due to their temperament. A poodle has a dictated temperament in their breed standard, which becomes part if their 'type'. Yes, there are other aspects of temperament, but a good breeder will not breed a dog with a poor temperament.


I'm teaching Buck to turn lights on and off because I have an irrational fear of walking into dark houses/rooms. It's the same thing with the show ring. Teach him to behave in the ring. I have never and will never believe that temperament is a huge factor. You can't assess the temperament of the dog in two minutes. Sure, some bad temperaments will be obvious but the "wrong" one won't always be. I've known some snippy dogs that people wouldn't want around their family who aren't supposed to be that way yet succeed in the ring.

And the biggest problem with your statement... Not all breeders are good breeders. Of course a GOOD breeder won't breed a dog with a poor temperament but most aren't good.



Caty M said:


> There are standards yes, but apparently they are not set in stone since many, I'd say even the majority, of breeds have changed looks in the last 100 years. Not even the extreme brachy breeds and large breeds, but even ones like labs. They are getting heavier and heavier set. I pointed out to a lab shower friend that I know that the so called founder of the breed looked like a field bred lab, not show bred and was lighter, she basically closed her eyes and refused to believe it, and that her labs are the 'true labs' since they have won shows. Never mind that my Italian greyhound can fetch better than they can.


Nick and I cringe when we see show labs. I watched the breed judging of the labs recently from the 2008 Westminster and there was a decent one in there who didn't look half bad but, of course, he was passed up for an obese one.


----------



## Liz

I will probably get my self in trouble but here goes. I raise and breed collies and shelties. Overall these are structurally sound easy keepers. They have few health issues and these can be avoided by careful breeding, etc. Anyone who knows me knwos I hate conformations showing. I love obedience. Conformation shows have not ruined breeds. I know with my dogs I can show for conformation and prove they are conformationally correct. Nothing is stopping me from proving they are also smart by doing obedience and have appropriate herding drive by doing herding trials. To say AKC or showing have ruined a breed is in my opinion inaccurate at least and shifts blame inappropriately.

I do not live with high herding instinct dogs - the ones I keep have a moderate drive. The pups I keep do have a high desire to please which makes them easy to train for obedience and I also look for high self confidence which tends to make them showy. All the dogs who live with me must have exceptional temperment. I petsit, have children, and many friends with children. I can't put another dog or a child at risk with poorly tempermented animals. Plus I would never breed dogs with poor temperment. I do not have the ability or desire to work a dog with a high herding drive and most people who come looking for a pet puppy do not either. That said most of the pups we have bred work in some capacity from therapy dogs, service dogs, show dogs, and herding dogs. Some have higher drive within the same litter. My boy is very laid back, confident, happy and easy - his sister is hard driving, loves to work and can herd anything that moves. He loves to jsut be adored and she has a passion to work. It happens this way in most litters, some pups are hunters and others work in other arenas. hwell:


----------



## xellil

CatyM didn't say showing was bad for ALL dogs. She said it was bad for DOGS. And that is a true statement.

I don't know how anyone can believe that the show ring has not hurt dogs. Not ALL dogs, but alot of them. It is sickening what we have done to dogs to make them look a certain way - and those dogs should never, ever be allowed in the show ring. And yet... those are the winners. 

Disgusting.


----------



## bernadettelevis

If you breed, are their any requirements so that the pups get papers in the us?

Here in Austria, if breed officially and want the puppies to be registered there are some requirements. You need to show, different health tests for the different breeds and working test. Weims for example need a hunting test. Working breeds like GSD and Rottweilers need a working test (Schutzhund).
There are still some improvements to make but its a good start. At least you know, that if you have a Puppy with ÖKV papers, that some kind of health tests were made and that the dogs have some kind of working test.

I've just been to a dog show recently, and sorry but its just odd. With the yorkies, they hairsprayed them, the whole dog, plus face, put mascara on them, the same for poodles and maltesers. What has that got to do with breed standarts or anything. 
And yes i know many people who look for judges they know will overlook something or preferr some colors or other traits. Some wont even show with another judge...


----------



## Celt

I don't think that shows are to blame for the ruination of a breed. Sadly, it's the breeders (at least a great number of them) that have "ruined" breeds. All shows do is help support the "will of the breeders" and influence the public's view of a breed. I believe a dog should be physically and mentally sound, as well as, having the (unexagerated) look of its breed. I'm not certain that it's neccessary for a dog to be able to do its "job" because the majority of owners would not be able to deal with the "work drive". Most owners simply want a companion with a certain look. 
I don't agree that a "naturally" occurring color should be "banned" from a breed because it causes limitation in a (generally already) limited gene pool.


----------



## bernadettelevis

Celt said:


> I'm not certain that it's neccessary for a dog to be able to do its "job" because the majority of owners would not be able to deal with the "work drive". Most owners simply want a companion with a certain look.


 So why do people not choose a dog whos temperament and drive fit their life??? And choosing a dog only for looks is just wrong so yes i think that the dogs should at least be able to do the job they were meant to do. There are so many different breeds, why choose a hunting dog if you don't want to work with a dog who has a hunting drive??


----------



## xellil

WHo would choose this:









over this?









What you are asking for is poor health and alot of money - there is a fellow who used to come to the dog park whose dog has had SEVEN operations on his back legs.

It's cruel, and it's wrong. And if these dogs didn't win in the show ring, they wouldn't exist. Period. They have no real functionality as a working dog. They are useless because of their health.


----------



## CorgiPaws

bernadettelevis said:


> If you breed, are their any requirements so that the pups get papers in the us?
> 
> Here in Austria, if breed officially and want the puppies to be registered there are some requirements. You need to show, different health tests for the different breeds and working test. Weims for example need a hunting test. Working breeds like GSD and Rottweilers need a working test (Schutzhund).
> There are still some improvements to make but its a good start. At least you know, that if you have a Puppy with ÖKV papers, that some kind of health tests were made and that the dogs have some kind of working test.
> 
> I've just been to a dog show recently, and sorry but its just odd. With the yorkies, they hairsprayed them, the whole dog, plus face, put mascara on them, the same for poodles and maltesers. What has that got to do with breed standarts or anything.
> And yes i know many people who look for judges they know will overlook something or preferr some colors or other traits. Some wont even show with another judge...


It depends on what you mean by "papers."
Here, when people mention papers they are generally referring to registration papers, AKC, UKC, CKC, etc. All that is required for that is that both parents be registered, and the breeder registers the litter. Breeders can give "limited" registration which means any offspring produced by that bitch/dog can not be registered, which deters people from breaking contract and breeding anyway. 
Titles have to be won in shows and trials. 



Celt said:


> I don't think that shows are to blame for the ruination of a breed. Sadly, it's the breeders (at least a great number of them) that have "ruined" breeds. All shows do is help support the "will of the breeders" and influence the public's view of a breed. I believe a dog should be physically and mentally sound, as well as, having the (unexagerated) look of its breed. I'm not certain that it's neccessary for a dog to be able to do its "job" because the majority of owners would not be able to deal with the "work drive". Most owners simply want a companion with a certain look.
> I don't agree that a "naturally" occurring color should be "banned" from a breed because it causes limitation in a (generally already) limited gene pool.


I agree to an extent with this. I think that it's so important that the parents of a litter meet whatever expectations you have in your puppy. It's not foolproof, but it's a relative gauge. If you want a calm puppy, you're more likely to get one out of mellow parents than one out of two spitfires, for example. (Braxton is a spitting image of his father in dang near every aspect. That's not an accident.) 
I guess this is why I feel titles aren't the end all be all- but also feel that every breeding program still needs a purpose, with the breeder taking an active approach in obtaining it. 

That being said, when FORM actually HINDERS FUNCTION, then it's a bad situation no matter how you look at it. 
People might not need a pet GSD that can do its job, but I'll bet they want one that can walk, for example.


----------



## NewYorkDogue

bernadettelevis said:


> So why do people not choose a dog whos temperament and drive fit their life??? And choosing a dog only for looks is just wrong so yes i think that the dogs should at least be able to do the job they were meant to do. There are so many different breeds, why choose a hunting dog if you don't want to work with a dog who has a hunting drive??


I worked for a boss once who absolutely loved Vizslas. Actually, he loved how they _looked_, yet he was not so interested in their exercise requirements. Consequently, the poor dogs (he owned 3 of them, one at a time) became horribly neurotic, and two of them became quite sick.

Yet, you see this all the time... and it makes me crazy. I mean, there are breeds of dogs whose "look" I find stunning, but I know the fit within my lifestyle would not work. Potential dog owners need to do their homework, yet rarely do.


----------



## Celt

bernadettelevis said:


> So why do people not choose a dog whos temperament and drive fit their life??? And choosing a dog only for looks is just wrong so yes i think that the dogs should at least be able to do the job they were meant to do. There are so many different breeds, why choose a hunting dog if you don't want to work with a dog who has a hunting drive??


In a "perfect" world, people would do this but the majority of people don't. And a few breeds would become a lot rarer (if not "die out") without these "shallow" people. I think a dog should be physically able to do the job, but maybe not have the "high drive" needed to do it.
Personally, I can't fathom how people can choose just from looks. (I don't intend my next comments as an insult to anyone) It boggles my mind that people select a pup when it's little more than a "squeaky, wiggling worm". There's not much you can tell at this age other than color, sex and sometimes if there's a "fault". I understand that the breeding should have a higher chance of guaranteeing the "type", but there's always a range what happens if your chosen pup meets the "look" but not the "personality".


----------



## CorgiPaws

Celt said:


> I understand that the breeding should have a higher chance of guaranteeing the "type", but there's always a range what happens if your chosen pup meets the "look" but not the "personality".


There is ALWAYS this chance. Always. 
But the odds are MORE in your favor of getting a perfect fit if you do your research, and select a pup from parents whom fit the mold you're looking for. 
I'd take a 8/10 chance over a 5/10 chance, just to put it simply. 

I REALLY think lack of breed research is a huge cause of owner-surrendered pets ending up in shelters as frequently as they are. 
Who knew a great dane got to be so big?
who knew a lab has so much energy?
Who knew a GSD needs early socialization?
who knew, who knew, who knew?!
The ones to spent some time researching. That's who.


----------



## minnieme

CorgiPaws said:


> There is ALWAYS this chance. Always.
> But the odds are MORE in your favor of getting a perfect fit if you do your research, and select a pup from parents whom fit the mold you're looking for.
> I'd take a 8/10 chance over a 5/10 chance, just to put it simply.
> 
> I REALLY think lack of breed research is a huge cause of owner-surrendered pets ending up in shelters as frequently as they are.
> Who knew a great dane got to be so big?
> who knew a lab has so much energy?
> Who knew a GSD needs early socialization?
> who knew, who knew, who knew?!
> The ones to spent some time researching. That's who.


I agree with this 500%. A lot of people think I got SO lucky with Minnie... which I did.... there are a lot of messed up danes in rescues. But with that said, by finding a breed that suits me 100%, I bettered my chances of finding a great dog. Growing up I thought I would always have mutts -- I think owning purebreds can sometimes mean a lot of sadness due to the limited gene pool. Plus, I will always feel sorry for the pound puppies. BUT -- Minnie isn't just a great match for me because she's that one in a million dog (okay, okay she is :biggrin: ). She's a great match because I did my research. I don't know how many times I've had to answer: how much space do you have? does SHE walk YOU? how do you keep up with her? does she eat you out of house and home? 

It infuriates me that people won't even narrow their selection by their lifestyle...my sister being a prime example. Walking into the shelter, saw the cutest puppy, and now she has a neurotic shepherd/terrier mix on her hands that makes her life miserable. Some life for both of 'em, huh?


----------



## xellil

I will admit, I don't "get" breeding dogs, period. I never will. I know there's a place for it in this world, it's just not my place nor any place I want to be associated with. I'll take my dumped dogs and my old dogs any day. 

But breeding dogs to be deformed because that's the AKC approved look that will win titles? I can't even begin to say how disgusted that makes me. If you pick a dog or breed a dog you should produce/buy one that's not some kind of genetic mutant, no matter what money you think you can make by producing an AKC champion.

And to me the AKC is indefensible. They encourage this breeding. People will always breed to win dog shows.

And Minnie, my college friend got an Australian Shepherd from the humane society. She was a nurse, working 12 hour shifts, and lived in an apartment. She never even gave that poor dog a walk and it destroyed her apartment to the tune of $7000, including baseboards, walls, etc. I was irritated with her, but I was also irritated with the Humane Society. It would have taken two questions - how much exercise will you be giving this dog and where will it live? to stop that horribly ill-fated adoption.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

xellil said:


> CatyM didn't say showing was bad for ALL dogs. She said it was bad for DOGS. And that is a true statement.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can believe that the show ring has not hurt dogs. Not ALL dogs, but alot of them. It is sickening what we have done to dogs to make them look a certain way - and those dogs should never, ever be allowed in the show ring. And yet... those are the winners.
> 
> Disgusting.


Some breeds are fine. Most of the hounds are all right and quite a few of the others. A lot of the breeds are perfectly functional but then you get into stuff like the bulldog and the pug and that's where things went haywire. It really isn't showing itself that has caused these breeds to be that way but these kennel clubs shouldn't just accept the changes that parent clubs make to the standards of these breeds. If a dog has major health issues that people have just come to accept as part of the breed then things need to drastically change for that breed. 



bernadettelevis said:


> If you breed, are their any requirements so that the pups get papers in the us?
> 
> Here in Austria, if breed officially and want the puppies to be registered there are some requirements. You need to show, different health tests for the different breeds and working test. Weims for example need a hunting test. Working breeds like GSD and Rottweilers need a working test (Schutzhund).
> There are still some improvements to make but its a good start. At least you know, that if you have a Puppy with ÖKV papers, that some kind of health tests were made and that the dogs have some kind of working test.
> 
> I've just been to a dog show recently, and sorry but its just odd. With the yorkies, they hairsprayed them, the whole dog, plus face, put mascara on them, the same for poodles and maltesers. What has that got to do with breed standarts or anything.
> And yes i know many people who look for judges they know will overlook something or preferr some colors or other traits. Some wont even show with another judge...


And that would be why I stick with breeds like the bluetick. Buck requires only enough grooming to remove visible dirt and dead hair. 



bernadettelevis said:


> So why do people not choose a dog whos temperament and drive fit their life??? And choosing a dog only for looks is just wrong so yes i think that the dogs should at least be able to do the job they were meant to do. There are so many different breeds, why choose a hunting dog if you don't want to work with a dog who has a hunting drive??


Because my hunting dog has the drive and energy needed to keep up with the rest of my family. No, Buck will never get to tree a **** but if I got a dog that was simply a companion animal I would have to carry the damn thing when we went hiking or camping. My family would not be able to own a dog that wasn't bred to have some kind of drive. TO be honest, I have never believed that a dog has to do the job it was bred for to be happy. As long as you keep a dog stimulated enough he is never going to know what he is missing. Buck has no idea that he should be out hunting *****. He just knows that he gets tons of playtime and exercise every day and is perfectly happy with that. 



xellil said:


> WHo would choose this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> over this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking for is poor health and alot of money - there is a fellow who used to come to the dog park whose dog has had SEVEN operations on his back legs.
> 
> It's cruel, and it's wrong. And if these dogs didn't win in the show ring, they wouldn't exist. Period. They have no real functionality as a working dog. They are useless because of their health.


I completely agree on breeds like that. Where the attraction to that kind of slope is, I will never know. I think, though, with the working line GSDs still around that there is still time to save the show lines. Every person who buys a GSD (or bulldog or neo or any other breed that is sliding downhill) should make it a goal to change the standards of these breeds. When Nick and I get a neo (not show quality but old style) I plan on inserting my opinion on the health of show neos until I get a reaction out of somebody in the parent club.


All in all, I love dog shows. I love the atmosphere. I love being able to participate with my dogs. However, there is so much that needs to change and, instead of just not participating and whining about the various kennel clubs, I am going to get myself in there and see what I can do to actively change the way some things happen. If you don't like the way your breed is represented in the show ring, CHANGE IT. Those with border collies (since there seems to be so many here), get in there and make yourself known! Talk to show breeders and find out why they breed dogs the way they do. Ask them if they approve of the standard. Ask them if they would like to see it changed. In the case of those with pugs, bulldogs, neos, etc, ask why it is ok to breed dogs that have such horrible health issues. There is so much more that can be done that people just don't do. At least asking these questions of breeders will make them think. If someone is confronted enough about an issue they will begin to think that maybe the masses are right. Doing nothing isn't going to change anything.


----------



## xellil

I used to have a friend who hunted *****. I went with him on several occasions. It was quite exciting listening to the dogs making their **** hound bays! It was my first real experience with dogs doing what they were bred to do aside from the cattle dogs who didn't make that fantastic noise.

I do realize that all **** dogs can't hunt *****, but we sure had a good time doing it. He had a whole passel of dogs, too.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

I would LOVE to go **** hunting one day. Not with Buck though. Most of those guys don't really see the dogs as family. They like them or even love them, sure, but they are still just dogs. I could never take Buck just because I know how big the risk of running into a lion would be. Or even a bear. Then there's the whole getting lost issue. I view Buck as a pet and part of the family. I would be too scared of him getting hurt. That's the same way the owners of 2 other pups from Buck's breeder feel about their girls. Haha. 

I do wonder if Buck would be any good at it... Maybe if we lived somewhere where we could **** hunt anything but lion I would consider it more.


----------



## bernadettelevis

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Because my hunting dog has the drive and energy needed to keep up with the rest of my family. No, Buck will never get to tree a **** but if I got a dog that was simply a companion animal I would have to carry the damn thing when we went hiking or camping. My family would not be able to own a dog that wasn't bred to have some kind of drive. TO be honest, I have never believed that a dog has to do the job it was bred for to be happy. As long as you keep a dog stimulated enough he is never going to know what he is missing. Buck has no idea that he should be out hunting *****. He just knows that he gets tons of playtime and exercise every day and is perfectly happy with that.


I totally agree with you. I own a Weimaraner and i don't hunt. I don't think tht a dog is only happy,doing what he was bred to do. However i love his drive and i love to work with his drive and i knew what kind of drive Weims have before i got the puppy. And i would never want a Weim without a drive. I just don't agree with breeding away from what the dogs were meant to do. Either you can handle them or you can't, Period!
Jack Russels are another breed. So many people own them because they thought it's a cute little dog, especially in the riding world. I could go on and on. People need to do their homework. A dog is not a stuffed animal or a hamster.

And then there are the European danes. Most of the ones i see over here, probably wouldn't be able to do any kind of job. I never really liked danes, until i saw all of your american Danes. I love Them!! But the danes i see over here, never.

With GSD, i think that the trend is already going back to normal backs, however it will take time.

I still think that it IS the judges fault. As long as the judges make those dogs champions, the breeders wont change a thing. Breeders want champions!


----------



## xellil

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I would LOVE to go **** hunting one day. Not with Buck though. Most of those guys don't really see the dogs as family. They like them or even love them, sure, but they are still just dogs. I could never take Buck just because I know how big the risk of running into a lion would be. Or even a bear. Then there's the whole getting lost issue. I view Buck as a pet and part of the family. I would be too scared of him getting hurt. That's the same way the owners of 2 other pups from Buck's breeder feel about their girls. Haha.
> 
> I do wonder if Buck would be any good at it... Maybe if we lived somewhere where we could **** hunt anything but lion I would consider it more.


You have wild lions up there? Not too many lions or bears in Texas. My friend did love his dogs - they didn't live inside because he had a very small place, but their kennels were about five feet from his front door and he was always out there with them. He never had a conversation that didn't revolve around his dogs. 

Like foxhounds, too - I would love to see a fox hunt. 

I do believe dogs can be happy not doing exactly what they were bred to do but we can simulate it and they do need that.

Rebel doesn't do what he is meant to do, either. I try to find ways to make him "work" with varied success.

Snorkels certainly doesn't, and I hope she never meets a badger. But if she was younger, I'd try to do that earthdog stuff with her. right now i just hide little pieces of food here and there. 

It's really incredible how she'll have no idea it's there and she's often not even in the room with the food, and suddenly she'll raise her nose and that sniff sniff sniff thing will start. And the search is on. I have to say I'm not really doing it for her, I just like to see that nose start going and watch her track down that treat like she's a guided missile. And the noise she makes - it's why her name is SNORKELS! Cracks me up.

Rebel has a very good nose but nothing even close to hers.


----------



## xellil

bernadettelevis said:


> I still think that it IS the judges fault. As long as the judges make those dogs champions, the breeders wont change a thing. Breeders want champions!


I so agree. If those dogs weren't winning, they wouldn't look like that.


----------



## Caty M

There are many good breeders but I'd say the bad ones far outnumber them. There absolutely SHOULD be requirements about all health testings being done and no dog should win if it has an inheritable disease. The AKC will not do that. If poodle A is health tested but poodles B, C, D and E are not, does that matter one bit in the ring? What if A has fantastic conformation but B is a tiny bit better, but he does have hip dysplasia, Addison's and vWD? Will he still win? 

And you can't deny the level of inbreeding and lack of genetic variety in most breeds. I do think hounds are probably the best off of the groups. 

I got turned off a lot on dog showing when I was considering getting a Cavalier King Charles spaniel.. a dog with terrible health. Most dogs have a heart murmur by age six, amongst many other common neurological diseases. I was reading a forum with a prominent show breeder in the US. Someone asked that if the only way to save the health of the breed would be to cross with a similar breed, would he agree with it.. and he said absolutely not, it would be a worthless crossbred. That attitude is not uncommon and it's disgusting.

I finally did lure coursing with Tessie- WOW, she loved it. I know she's always had an insane prey drive but it was great to see her on the field. She was completely focused on the lure, nothing else fazed her. It's neat seeing a little 10lb dog run 45 kmh :heh: she may be 10lb but she loves going hiking, running, she'll plow right through mud. My sheltie is much more dainty.

Bishop comes from working parents but doesn't have a whole lot of drive.. in fact he's pretty damn lazy.


----------



## danecolor

bernadettelevis said:


> And then there are the European danes. Most of the ones i see over here, probably wouldn't be able to do any kind of job. I never really liked danes, until i saw all of your american Danes. I love Them!! But the danes i see over here, never.


i agree completely. a lot of european danes seem to be going the way of the neapolitan mastiff - way too heavy, way too much skin, and questionable joints. it is a shame because great danes are supposed to be strong, dignified, and elegant. they are not meant to be sloppy, overdone, and clumsy-looking.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15

As far as the Labs being horribly obese at shows. IMO, you can't really comment that they ARE obese unless you actually get your hands on them. There are indeed some Labs out there that are just plain fat, but a lot of them do have more bone and coat. Actually just seeing a Lab in and out of coat makes a big difference (imo). I know we had a thread on my Lab board about this, so I'll see if I can dig it up.

Here is is... it is already on the right page where it shows an example, but it is 5 posts down.
Just curious - show weight - Page 2

I know I saw another thread that had the same kind of topic and pictures too, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Oh well!



GoingPostal said:


> You could ask that of several breeds, labs can come in brindle and black and tan, but those aren't showable colors either.


Not exactly true. Yes, those above can show up from time to time (& do). However, you can' specifically breed for that in Labs as they are mismarks... to my (limited) knowledge anyway. Labs only come in 3 colors... Black, Yellow and Chocolate. There are different shades of those colors (& occasionally mismarks), but only those 3 colors.

Mismarks & other odd markings in Labradors part 2 - Woodhaven Labradors


----------



## meggels

I love my mutant breed  And I know ethically frenchies are such a messed up breed, but I just adore them...


----------



## KittyKat

nikkiluvsu15 said:


> As far as the Labs being horribly obese at shows. IMO, you can't really comment that they ARE obese unless you actually get your hands on them. There are indeed some Labs out there that are just plain fat, but a lot of them do have more bone and coat. Actually just seeing a Lab in and out of coat makes a big difference (imo). I know we had a thread on my Lab board about this, so I'll see if I can dig it up.
> 
> Here is is... it is already on the right page where it shows an example, but it is 5 posts down.
> Just curious - show weight - Page 2
> 
> I know I saw another thread that had the same kind of topic and pictures too, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Oh well!


The coat does make a huge (pun intended) difference. I have seen a lot of rather chubby dogs at dog shows, but i would say they are in the minority- most labs I have seen were in rather good shape compared to what you see at the local dog park.



meggels said:


> I love my mutant breed  And I know ethically frenchies are such a messed up breed, but I just adore them...


Can you explain *why* you adore them, compared to say, other breeds that are not full of genetic faults? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind this as from my perspective there are many other breeds out there that could offer the same thing, without all the health problems.


----------



## Sprocket

Why do all those labs on that thread look like they have extra sagging skin?


----------



## nikkiluvsu15

Sprocket said:


> Why do all those labs on that thread look like they have extra sagging skin?


Sagging/Loose skin where? Curious if you mean around the neck or somewhere else. If you are talking about the neck, that is pretty common in Labs (Harleigh has it, which obviously you noticed because I post a few pictures of her on that thread :wink. Heck, Harleigh even has loose skin on her stomach.....LOL!

Does your dog have loose skin around neck?

If you are talking about other loose skin (which I didn't see very much of), that could be because of having puppies or just they have loose skin. :tongue:

The main difference between Harleigh and well-bred Labs is that Harleigh has a tuck-up (think Greyhound, etc.), whereas Labs are not supposed to have those. Even when Labs have a defined waist, some people still think they are a little bit heavy because they don't have a tuck-up (which, imo, does make a dog look thinner... at least in Harleigh it does haha).

Another picture on the thread that shows a dog in/out of coat... 5th post down again (those who went through the whole thread may have seen this one).
http://www.lab-retriever.net/board/agility-obedience-conformation/7370554-just-curious-show-weight-6.html


----------



## xellil

If I had a dog with alot of issues due to deformities, I would still love the dog with all my heart. But not necessarily what had been done to it.

But, i really hope I don't. It's very expensive to keep these dogs going. My cousin's daughter got an English bulldog and she comments pretty constantly on how much it costs her to keep him healthy.


----------



## CorgiPaws

danecolor said:


> i agree completely. a lot of european danes seem to be going the way of the neapolitan mastiff - way too heavy, way too much skin, and questionable joints. it is a shame because great danes are supposed to be strong, dignified, and elegant. they are not meant to be sloppy, overdone, and clumsy-looking.


I agree with this. 
I will, however say that I am REALLY partial to the look of half euro Danes out of non-exaggerated Euros. 
Timber's sire is a Euro harl. I'm not a huge huge fan of Euros to begin with, but he's not extremely saggy and sloppy like many of them. 










And her litter: (I forgot how dark her spots used to be)


----------



## Scarlett_O'

KittyKat said:


> Can you explain *why* you adore them, compared to say, other breeds that are not full of genetic faults? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind this as from my perspective there are many other breeds out there that could offer the same thing, without all the health problems.


Im not Meg, but I have 2 Frenchies in my family...and Ive got to say, they arent one of MY preferred breeds, but all of the Frenchies Ive ever come into contact with are AMAZING. Ive NEVER met another dog, or breed, like them! 

But anyways, ya, I just had to comment on that!:wink:


----------



## xellil

Scarlett_O' said:


> Im not Meg, but I have 2 Frenchies in my family...and Ive got to say, they arent one of MY preferred breeds, but all of the Frenchies Ive ever come into contact with are AMAZING. Ive NEVER met another dog, or breed, like them!
> 
> But anyways, ya, I just had to comment on that!:wink:


I think you can definitely love the dog without loving what is happening to the breed as a whole.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

xellil said:


> I think you can definitely love the dog without loving what is happening to the breed as a whole.


TOTALLY agree!!

Also with Jazzy her's was a TOTAL natural breeding and whelp...so not ALL Frenchies(like most think) have to have AI and C-sections!:wink:


----------



## meggels

Scarlett_O' said:


> Im not Meg, but I have 2 Frenchies in my family...and Ive got to say, they arent one of MY preferred breeds, but all of the Frenchies Ive ever come into contact with are AMAZING. Ive NEVER met another dog, or breed, like them!
> 
> But anyways, ya, I just had to comment on that!:wink:


I love their look first and foremost. Murph makes me smile just looking at him. That's what first drew me to them, was their look because I thought they were adorable.


I love their silliness, their snorting, the weird gremlin noises they make, their laid back personalities, the females that have a little more pep to them.

I love that they don't want a lot of exercise. I love that Murph can go ANYWHERE and he just walks in like he owns the place and isn't freaked out by ANYTHING. He is so unreactive, I can seriously take him anywhere. I love that people are always commenting on what a great personality he has. I love that he loves every single person he meets, and sits politely for petting. 

I love that they are small and portable. 

I'm always drawn to similar breeds though. Boxers are what I grew up with, and I love BT's and pugs as well.


----------



## DaneMama

Gah!!! Seeing baby pictures of Timber made me go and look at baby pictures of Zuri...seeing as this thread has gotten a little off track, I think its about time to get it back on topic. Naturally occurring colors of the Great Dane (and various other breeds LOL)...lets see them photos! 

The picture that made me fall in love at first sight with Zuri (top right): 










Our 5 week visit at the breeder's house: 




























First day home: 










First visit to Gma's house LOL:










She killed her stuffy d-e-a-d: 










Can't forget Akasha....who is a blue brindle merle!


----------



## Scarlett_O'

OMG, Natalie she is SOOO cute, and those pictures....OH SOOOOO CUTE!!!!


and Ive got to say, I LOVE that "my breed" can have any colour and pattern known to man(and any/all unknown to us!:tongue


----------



## CorgiPaws

Well golly jeepers, if you're ASKING for "off" colored dane pics, who am I to deny you?!

Mousse- Chocolate w/ white.


















Zailey- Mantle Merle (mismarked)


















And how can I resist a baby Zailey? Oh wait, that's right: I couldn't. 








24 days old- visit










Braxton- Onyx Brindle (because, you know, it's so much less Dane than a regular brindle) *sarcasm*

















Baby Braxton


----------



## Scarlett_O'

MOOOOOOOOOSSSSSEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  


WOW......I always forget how AMAZING he is....till I see him again!!!LOL


and baby Braxton.....dear GAWDZZZZZZZZZZ..........SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hmbutler

CorgiPaws said:


>



hehe I've never noticed her pattern before... looks like she is wearing a little vest


----------



## hmbutler

nikkiluvsu15 said:


> The main difference between Harleigh and well-bred Labs is that Harleigh has a tuck-up (think Greyhound, etc.), whereas Labs are not supposed to have those. Even when Labs have a defined waist, some people still think they are a little bit heavy because they don't have a tuck-up (which, imo, does make a dog look thinner... at least in Harleigh it does haha).
> 
> Another picture on the thread that shows a dog in/out of coat... 5th post down again (those who went through the whole thread may have seen this one).
> Just curious - show weight - Page 6


Crikey... if I posted a pic of Duke in that thread, they'd probably think I starved him lol. He has a big tuck, and I dont care if it's "breed standard" or not, I love the way he looks - fit and lean. I'll have to take a decent pic of him sometime soon and post it on here, he's obviously not pure bred if the tuck isn't meant to be there lol.

Back on topic - I don't get why the colour of a coat is a determination of a good breed standard... does the "mutation" mean there are other health defects? Or is it purely just because the coat is different? I couldn't care less what the breed standards are for great danes, I think all of Linsey and Natalie's puppers have gorgeous colours!! But, then again, I'll never show a dog, or breed them, I will always own dogs to be a pet and a part of the family, not to be on show or earn me money lol


----------



## CorgiPaws

Got all side tracked by less important things, liike work and stuff. 

Timber- Fawn Merle (half euro)



























Kola- Chocolate Merle. Conformationally my weakest Dane. As much as I'd love to breed her to Mousse and have chocolate babies right off the bat, I actually think she might be better complimented by Braxton, (or another stud) and then I will keep a chocolate carrier to breed to Mousse. This is all hypothetical, there's still a lot of developing and health testing that needs to be done across the board. This girl has got some serious personality!!


----------



## nikkiluvsu15

hmbutler said:


> Crikey... if I posted a pic of Duke in that thread, they'd probably think I starved him lol. He has a big tuck, and I dont care if it's "breed standard" or not, I love the way he looks - fit and lean. I'll have to take a decent pic of him sometime soon and post it on here, he's obviously not pure bred if the tuck isn't meant to be there lol.
> 
> Back on topic - I don't get why the colour of a coat is a determination of a good breed standard... does the "mutation" mean there are other health defects? Or is it purely just because the coat is different? I couldn't care less what the breed standards are for great danes, I think all of Linsey and Natalie's puppers have gorgeous colours!! But, then again, I'll never show a dog, or breed them, I will always own dogs to be a pet and a part of the family, not to be on show or earn me money lol


I posted pictures of Harleigh in that thread... Towards the end (can't remember what page number). Like I said, Harleigh has a big tuck-up and is very lean. While some on the board have said she could gain some weight, they know that Labs come in different heights and weights 

Just because he has a tuck-up doesn't mean he isn't purebred... I've seen many pet bred labs with a tuck-up....

I prefer lean dogs, I just like to defend bench labs at times because they all get called fat, when that isn't necessarily the case.

Btw, pictures of Harleigh are on page 6, post 12.


----------



## DaneMama

hmbutler said:


> Back on topic - I don't get why the colour of a coat is a determination of a good breed standard... does the "mutation" mean there are other health defects? Or is it purely just because the coat is different? I couldn't care less what the breed standards are for great danes, I think all of Linsey and Natalie's puppers have gorgeous colours!! But, then again, I'll never show a dog, or breed them, I will always own dogs to be a pet and a part of the family, not to be on show or earn me money lol


Thanks! 

There aren't any health defects that are associated with color other than eye/ear sensory defects with double merles (breeding harl X harl, merle X merle, harl X merle...any merle to any merle) and color dilute alopecia associated with dilute colors like blue or the lilac or double dilute chocolates (not Mousse's chocolate color)...which you just don't breed carriers or affected individuals. Alopecia is very rare in Danes though, more common in Dobes.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

DaneMama said:


> Thanks!
> 
> There aren't any health defects that are associated with color other than eye/ear sensory defects with double merles (breeding harl X harl, merle X merle, harl X merle...any merle to any merle) and color dilute alopecia associated with dilute colors like blue or the lilac or double dilute chocolates (not Mousse's chocolate color)...which you just don't breed carriers or affected individuals. Alopecia is very rare in Danes though, more common in Dobes.


I also, recently, learned that(at least with BCs) breeding 2 split faced dogs is asking for trouble.....a breeder that I HIGHLY respect, and that knows all about colours, and BCs of course, told me that...I hadnt ever heard that before, but Im assuming its true and because of the white factor??


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

bernadettelevis said:


> I totally agree with you. I own a Weimaraner and i don't hunt. I don't think tht a dog is only happy,doing what he was bred to do. However i love his drive and i love to work with his drive and i knew what kind of drive Weims have before i got the puppy. And i would never want a Weim without a drive. I just don't agree with breeding away from what the dogs were meant to do. Either you can handle them or you can't, Period!
> Jack Russels are another breed. So many people own them because they thought it's a cute little dog, especially in the riding world. I could go on and on. People need to do their homework. A dog is not a stuffed animal or a hamster.
> 
> And then there are the European danes. Most of the ones i see over here, probably wouldn't be able to do any kind of job. I never really liked danes, until i saw all of your american Danes. I love Them!! But the danes i see over here, never.
> 
> With GSD, i think that the trend is already going back to normal backs, however it will take time.
> 
> I still think that it IS the judges fault. As long as the judges make those dogs champions, the breeders wont change a thing. Breeders want champions!


Yea. I agree with you. I must have misunderstood what you said the first time. When we were looking for bluetick breeders I cam across one in California. They proudly boasted about how their blueticks were the perfect family pets and how they were blueticks with the temperament of a golden retriever. Yes, goldens are still working dogs but they have been bred down to be couch potatoes. That's, apparently, how their blueticks were. So I didn't get one from them.

A lot of horse people here (at least the ones I grew up with) have Jacks because of coyotes. I have never seen a dog more successful at repelling coyotes as a Jack. They also like them because they have the energy to accompany them on trail rides. They can usually go as far as they want without having to worry about the dog tiring out and if it does it is a small dog that can be put in front of a person in a saddle. My trainer always had Corgis. Jolene, Jenny, and Jillian were their names 

I have never had the chance to compare a European Dane to an American Dane. What are the differences? I have noticed the obvious ones in males heads and, from what I remember, they are bigger and bulkier, yea?

I sure do hope so. GSDs are in such poor shape right now. And I don't know how much influence the judges have over the standards. I suppose if every judge were to award dogs with slightly less sloped backs than the standard calls for, breeders will slowly start breeding dogs with straighter and straighter backs which will result in the parent clubs changing the standards. I don't know. All I know is that people are going to have to work hard and accept slow changes when we try to get standards changed.



xellil said:


> You have wild lions up there? Not too many lions or bears in Texas. My friend did love his dogs - they didn't live inside because he had a very small place, but their kennels were about five feet from his front door and he was always out there with them. He never had a conversation that didn't revolve around his dogs.
> 
> Like foxhounds, too - I would love to see a fox hunt.
> 
> I do believe dogs can be happy not doing exactly what they were bred to do but we can simulate it and they do need that.
> 
> Rebel doesn't do what he is meant to do, either. I try to find ways to make him "work" with varied success.
> 
> Snorkels certainly doesn't, and I hope she never meets a badger. But if she was younger, I'd try to do that earthdog stuff with her. right now i just hide little pieces of food here and there.
> 
> It's really incredible how she'll have no idea it's there and she's often not even in the room with the food, and suddenly she'll raise her nose and that sniff sniff sniff thing will start. And the search is on. I have to say I'm not really doing it for her, I just like to see that nose start going and watch her track down that treat like she's a guided missile. And the noise she makes - it's why her name is SNORKELS! Cracks me up.
> 
> Rebel has a very good nose but nothing even close to hers.


By lions, I mean mountain lions, cougars, panthers, catamounts, etc. Hahaha. That animal has way too many names. I grew up jut calling them lions.

I love doing that with Buck too. I thought Dude had a good nose before I got Buck. Now I know what a good nose REALLY is! Hahaha.



CorgiPaws said:


> I agree with this.
> I will, however say that I am REALLY partial to the look of half euro Danes out of non-exaggerated Euros.
> Timber's sire is a Euro harl. I'm not a huge huge fan of Euros to begin with, but he's not extremely saggy and sloppy like many of them.


A lot of the breeders up here in Washington that I have talked to use European danes that look very similar to American danes. It's not an uncommon thing to do, apparently. I made a comment to Nick last December when we thought we were getting a dane that I would love to find a dane that was half American, half European. I really don't think I have ever even seen a true European dane that everyone is talking about. ALl of the ones I have seen are built a lot like American danes. 

Good God... I can't stand it when you two post pictures!!! My puppy fever is ALREADY bad... Then there's the fact that a dane pup will likely be the next pup I get... D*^n this two dog limit!

Honestly, if the color standards were removed, I would still consider a b/w mantle, but a chocolate merle, chocolate, and brindlequin would all be choices too. I'd probably just end up drawing a color out of a hat...


----------



## CorgiPaws

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> A lot of the breeders up here in Washington that I have talked to use European danes that look very similar to American danes. It's not an uncommon thing to do, apparently. I made a comment to Nick last December when we thought we were getting a dane that I would love to find a dane that was half American, half European. I really don't think I have ever even seen a true European dane that everyone is talking about. ALl of the ones I have seen are built a lot like American danes.


They really shouldn't look THAT different. 

Some breeders just really exaggerate the whole droopy look, and breed dogs with so much excess skin (particularly in the head/lip area) tha they completely lose their regal look, and just get sloppy.


----------



## meggels

what's up with that dogs back legs???



Who do you plan to breed Timber to? Cause uh, I want one?


----------



## hmbutler

meggels said:


> what's up with that dogs back legs???
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you plan to breed Timber to? Cause uh, I want one?


Me too (well actually I want Timber, but apparently I'm not allowed)... how does a young puppy go on a super long around the world flight to Australia?? Lol


----------



## GoingPostal

CorgiPaws said:


> One of the biggest gripes that fanciers of these non-showable Danes has is the lack of ethical breeders producing them. Many times they are sold like novelties, or labeled "rare" which is not the case at all. Breeders like this don't give a second thought to conformation OR, more importantly, health testing. It's sad. I hope that changes. I'm not ignorant, I know my dogs flaws. Kola particularly has the weakest conformation of my pack but you know what- it's a starting point. If we NEVER improve the lines outside of the very tiny show-dog gene pool, I fear for the breed's future.


If breeders like that are so sad and unethical why do you support them by buying their dogs?


----------



## meggels

GoingPostal said:


> If breeders like that are so sad and unethical why do you support them by buying their dogs?



I think they acquire their dogs from breeders that also support health testing and good confo, not just breeding for unique colors.


----------



## CorgiPaws

GoingPostal said:


> If breeders like that are so sad and unethical why do you support them by buying their dogs?


FANTASTIC question. My dogs being off colored, doesn't automatically make them the product of such breeding programs. Because of recessive genes, these colors can and DO show up, even in show breeder's programs. All but one of my dogs have been obtained by these types of circumstances. 

Mousse is* not* the the product of any Chocolate breeder. Both his parents are actually Black, who happened to carry the recessive Chocolate gene. Chocolates DO pop up outside of dedicated Chocolate breeding programs. He was a very lucky find, and it doesn't happen often. 

Braxton and Timber were purchased prom the same breeder, out of different lines. I showed a picture of Timber's litter in this post already. She is out of a Harl x Mantle breeding. Braxton is out of a brindle x fawn breeding. (both acceptable pairs, according to the color families)They are from a breeder that places plenty of pups in show homes, who happens to have an open enough mind to sell me two beautiful, yet "off marked" Danes on Full Registration. This came after several hours of talking, and meeting in person. She herself has crossed color families for ONE breeding (that produced some beautiful danes!) but otherwise colors inside the lines. Braxton has two litter mates in the show ring that last I checked were doing quite well. 

Braxton's Litter:









Timber's Litter:









I don't LOVE Kola's breeding program, but I don't LOVE any chocolate breeding program, and after much deliberation, decided it was my best option. I have a strong desire to produce well conformed, healthy, sound chocolate danes, and that requires me to start somewhere. I WILL OWN THAT. I think it's about time these lines are improved, or they are better off gone forever. I for one am a fan of this color, and would rather see it improved than gone, and there are plenty who agree. Kola is the only dog I've purchased from a breeder of this type. I won't lie about it, or try to deny it. With so few chocolates around, it was a decision I made that I stand by. SHould she not pass health testing, or develop a character flaw, she will be spayed without a doubt, and I'll be back to the drawing board. I feel I'm working towards a very worthy cause, and a chocolate female was a vital part to it. I can assure you, I won't be charging an arm and a leg for my super duper rare chocolates like every other chocolate breeder I can think of. They are danes. Simple as that. 

Zailey is from a local breeder. While merle isn't showable, it is VERY common, and entirely unavoidable in harl programs, which is what she's out of.


----------



## bernadettelevis

yes that's the thing about european danes. They are sloppy and just "too much". 
Although not all european Danes are bad, there are also good breeders who breed away from the extrem.
But most danes i see here have huge muzzles and eye lids hanging down. I know 2 black Danes Where you can only see red spots astheir eyes. That's sad.
The other day i met a Dane and commenten on how i like that his eye lids are rather normal and the owner told me that he already had surgery.
I actually don't see any off colors here. Mostly Blacks or Blue Danes.

Oh and by the way, i love Kola <3 . When you breed her, send a puppy over to me 

btw linsey: do you have a new corgi puppy??


----------



## CorgiPaws

meggels said:


> what's up with that dogs back legs???
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you plan to breed Timber to? Cause uh, I want one?


 PROBABLY Braxton. I say probably because they really compliment eachother, but are young and there's a chance they might not be a perfect match in which case I will have to look for a stud elsewhere. I've contacted a guy with a CH fawn male a couple hours away who was actually open to studding to any one of my females (though he would double the stud fee for non showable females. Go figure.) But then I found out in conversation this particular dog is very heavily line bred. Same sire 3 generations in a row.:-( so, i am no longer considering it. It's a shame, too. he is a very handsome dog. 
I personally will be keeping at least one of Timber's puppies at some point to be included in the breeding program. She will be 1 in March, at which point she is old enough for PennHIP, ofa heart and ofa thyroid tests. Of course I will not breed her that young. Probably early 2013. 



bernadettelevis said:


> Oh and by the way, i love Kola <3 . When you breed her, send a puppy over to me
> 
> btw linsey: do you have a new corgi puppy??


Kola is flattered! Lol. You know, if I'm being honest with myself, she has one of the most hilarious personalities ever. There's no need for TV when Kola is around. Seriously. She's a goof.


And Yes. His name is Griffin. It couldn't be stopped.


----------



## hmbutler

CorgiPaws said:


> Braxton's Litter:


Why?? WHY DID YOU POST THIS?? I spent all afternoon at work googling great dane breeders in Australia haha. Found a great looking one with a brindle/fawn litter due at the end of the month... OH how I wanted to submit an enquiry... hubby would kill me though


----------



## CorgiPaws

hmbutler said:


> Why?? WHY DID YOU POST THIS?? I spent all afternoon at work googling great dane breeders in Australia haha. Found a great looking one with a brindle/fawn litter due at the end of the month... OH how I wanted to submit an enquiry... hubby would kill me though


Because a pile of sweet, Cuddy 5 week old sleeping Dane babies, all "correctly" marked but one seemed fitting? LOL.


----------



## bernadettelevis

OT: But i think we all need pictures of your new puppy  ! He looks so sweet on your avatar!!


----------



## bernadettelevis

This is a euorpean Dane puppy:
,


----------



## hmbutler

bernadettelevis said:


> This is a euorpean Dane puppy:
> ,


They're too droopy for my liking, they lose all of that awesome, regal look about them... seriously if I could clone a dog and get an exact copy of it, I'd clone Timber, I'm so in love with her haha 




CorgiPaws said:


>


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

CorgiPaws said:


> They really shouldn't look THAT different.
> 
> Some breeders just really exaggerate the whole droopy look, and breed dogs with so much excess skin (particularly in the head/lip area) tha they completely lose their regal look, and just get sloppy.


THAT is NOT an attractive dog... and you know, I was thinking to myself a little bit ago... You REALLY don't take enough pictures of Mousse  And it;s funny but, last Christmas when Nick and I were looking at danes we had decided that a name for consideration would be Moose.

Nick and I found a breeder last winter who has some European bitches and she breeds them to her American males and the pups looked outstanding. I have NEVER seen a European dane that ^^^ sloppy looking.



CorgiPaws said:


> FANTASTIC question. My dogs being off colored, doesn't automatically make them the product of such breeding programs. Because of recessive genes, these colors can and DO show up, even in show breeder's programs. All but one of my dogs have been obtained by these types of circumstances.
> 
> Mousse is* not* the the product of any Chocolate breeder. Both his parents are actually Black, who happened to carry the recessive Chocolate gene. Chocolates DO pop up outside of dedicated Chocolate breeding programs. He was a very lucky find, and it doesn't happen often.
> 
> Braxton and Timber were purchased prom the same breeder, out of different lines. I showed a picture of Timber's litter in this post already. She is out of a Harl x Mantle breeding. Braxton is out of a brindle x fawn breeding. (both acceptable pairs, according to the color families)They are from a breeder that places plenty of pups in show homes, who happens to have an open enough mind to sell me two beautiful, yet "off marked" Danes on Full Registration. This came after several hours of talking, and meeting in person. She herself has crossed color families for ONE breeding (that produced some beautiful danes!) but otherwise colors inside the lines. Braxton has two litter mates in the show ring that last I checked were doing quite well.
> 
> I don't LOVE Kola's breeding program, but I don't LOVE any chocolate breeding program, and after much deliberation, decided it was my best option. I have a strong desire to produce well conformed, healthy, sound chocolate danes, and that requires me to start somewhere. I WILL OWN THAT. I think it's about time these lines are improved, or they are better off gone forever. I for one am a fan of this color, and would rather see it improved than gone, and there are plenty who agree. Kola is the only dog I've purchased from a breeder of this type. I won't lie about it, or try to deny it. With so few chocolates around, it was a decision I made that I stand by. SHould she not pass health testing, or develop a character flaw, she will be spayed without a doubt, and I'll be back to the drawing board. I feel I'm working towards a very worthy cause, and a chocolate female was a vital part to it. I can assure you, I won't be charging an arm and a leg for my super duper rare chocolates like every other chocolate breeder I can think of. They are danes. Simple as that.
> 
> Zailey is from a local breeder. While merle isn't showable, it is VERY common, and entirely unavoidable in harl programs, which is what she's out of.


Well, you can count me in for a chocolate baby down the road! I LOVE the chocolates. Especially the merles. And Mousse... Have I ever mentioned that he is my favorite? I know most people prefer Braxton, but... I love Mousse. 



bernadettelevis said:


> This is a euorpean Dane puppy:
> ,


Already droopy... American danes are so much more regal looking.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Timber and Mousse are flattered. Thank you!! 

Just throwing it out there: the overdone sloppy Euros aren't what they should be, they are an exaggeration. While euros in general tens to have a little more lip and skin than American danes, they aren't SUPPOSED to be that extreme.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

CorgiPaws said:


> Timber and Mousse are flattered. Thank you!!
> 
> Just throwing it out there: the overdone sloppy Euros aren't what they should be, they are an exaggeration. While euros in general tens to have a little more lip and skin than American danes, they aren't SUPPOSED to be that extreme.


Right. That's why I was so confused about the Euro danes at first because I have seen some and people here were talking about how horrible they were and I was thinking... "Well, I like them!". The Euro danes I have seen are lippier and a bit heavier but it wasn't an extreme difference. The easiest way to tell who had Euros was to look at the adult males, but outside of being a bit heavier and lipper, there wasn't a huge difference.


----------



## bernadettelevis

i like the half euro half american like Timber a lot and if i remember correctly mousse is lso half half.

Another thing i noticed is that at the dog show i acutally only saw blue Danes, is this some kind of trend???

is there a site where you can see all dane colors??


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Actually, if you go to the westminster website they have 2011 breed judging videos and you can see a ton of danes. I think there is at least one of each color. Primarily fawns and blacks, I believe. For dane lovers, it's worth watching. I think it depends on where you are at too. I would imagine if you happen to be in an area where there are a lot of mantle breeders, for example, you would see mostly mantles. Here we see mostly merle mantles with the occasional black.


----------



## Herzo

I didn't know they had a proper brindle coloring. I know there are what they call brindle or reverse brindle I just thought they could be ether. He was the one of your dogs I thought was of show able coloring.

I was going to ask if they came in chocolate mantle but I guess that's been answered. I think that would be something to see and also a blue mantle. I was trying to look up colors the last time this was talked about but never found that much. I think there are also gray brindle? Would love to see that as well. Do they hide all these pictures?


----------



## danecolor

Herzo said:


> I didn't know they had a proper brindle coloring. I know there are what they call brindle or reverse brindle I just thought they could be ether. He was the one of your dogs I thought was of show able coloring.


the darker brindles, which are sometimes called onyx or reverse brindles, are showable colors. distinct and even brindling is the preferred pattern while too-heavy or too-light brindling is equally undesirable (Great Dane Official Standard). so dark brindles can be shown, they are just at a slight disadvantage because their coloring is not "correct". 



Herzo said:


> I was going to ask if they came in chocolate mantle but I guess that's been answered. I think that would be something to see and also a blue mantle. I was trying to look up colors the last time this was talked about but never found that much. I think there are also gray brindle? Would love to see that as well. Do they hide all these pictures?


i catalog great dane colors for fun, so i have pictures of a good number of the possible colors, including chocolate and blue mantles. you can see a lot of uncommon-colored great dane puppies if you browse some of the puppy-selling websites like puppyfind.com . they will all, more than likely, be from shady breeders unfortunately. blue brindles are very pretty, I have a couple of pictures of those as well. if you search google images for the individual colors, you might have more luck with pictures coming up. there are not any really comprehensive websites that show all the possible dane colors.


----------



## BrownieM

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Some breeds are fine. Most of the hounds are all right and quite a few of the others. A lot of the breeds are perfectly functional but then you get into stuff like the bulldog and the pug and that's where things went haywire. It really isn't showing itself that has caused these breeds to be that way but these kennel clubs shouldn't just accept the changes that parent clubs make to the standards of these breeds. If a dog has major health issues that people have just come to accept as part of the breed then things need to drastically change for that breed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why I stick with breeds like the bluetick. Buck requires only enough grooming to remove visible dirt and dead hair.
> 
> 
> 
> Because my hunting dog has the drive and energy needed to keep up with the rest of my family. No, Buck will never get to tree a **** but if I got a dog that was simply a companion animal I would have to carry the damn thing when we went hiking or camping. My family would not be able to own a dog that wasn't bred to have some kind of drive. TO be honest, I have never believed that a dog has to do the job it was bred for to be happy. As long as you keep a dog stimulated enough he is never going to know what he is missing. Buck has no idea that he should be out hunting *****. He just knows that he gets tons of playtime and exercise every day and is perfectly happy with that.
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree on breeds like that. Where the attraction to that kind of slope is, I will never know. I think, though, with the working line GSDs still around that there is still time to save the show lines. Every person who buys a GSD (or bulldog or neo or any other breed that is sliding downhill) should make it a goal to change the standards of these breeds. When Nick and I get a neo (not show quality but old style) I plan on inserting my opinion on the health of show neos until I get a reaction out of somebody in the parent club.
> 
> 
> All in all, I love dog shows. I love the atmosphere. I love being able to participate with my dogs. However, there is so much that needs to change and, instead of just not participating and whining about the various kennel clubs, I am going to get myself in there and see what I can do to actively change the way some things happen. If you don't like the way your breed is represented in the show ring, CHANGE IT. Those with border collies (since there seems to be so many here), get in there and make yourself known! Talk to show breeders and find out why they breed dogs the way they do. Ask them if they approve of the standard. Ask them if they would like to see it changed. In the case of those with pugs, bulldogs, neos, etc, ask why it is ok to breed dogs that have such horrible health issues. There is so much more that can be done that people just don't do. At least asking these questions of breeders will make them think. If someone is confronted enough about an issue they will begin to think that maybe the masses are right. Doing nothing isn't going to change anything.


Thank you, this is what I was trying to say.


----------



## Herzo

danecolor thanks I didn't think of that, sometimes I have to have my hand held getting through this computer. You should post some of your pictures. Yea I didn't find any when I Googled it the first time just things explaining the colors. I'll try that.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

danecolor said:


> the darker brindles, which are sometimes called onyx or reverse brindles, are showable colors. distinct and even brindling is the preferred pattern while too-heavy or too-light brindling is equally undesirable (Great Dane Official Standard). so dark brindles can be shown, they are just at a slight disadvantage because their coloring is not "correct".
> 
> 
> 
> i catalog great dane colors for fun, so i have pictures of a good number of the possible colors, including chocolate and blue mantles. you can see a lot of uncommon-colored great dane puppies if you browse some of the puppy-selling websites like puppyfind.com . they will all, more than likely, be from shady breeders unfortunately. blue brindles are very pretty, I have a couple of pictures of those as well. if you search google images for the individual colors, you might have more luck with pictures coming up. there are not any really comprehensive websites that show all the possible dane colors.


Do you think you could somehow make your collection available to us? Hahaha. I would LOVE to see some of these colors that I have never had the opportunity to see before.


----------



## jdatwood

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Do you think you could somehow make your collection available to us? Hahaha. I would LOVE to see some of these colors that I have never had the opportunity to see before.


Here's one place you could look. You'll have to scroll down a bit on the first page...
Dane Color Chart


----------



## danecolor

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Do you think you could somehow make your collection available to us? Hahaha. I would LOVE to see some of these colors that I have never had the opportunity to see before.


i wish i could but i have about 7,400 pictures of 67 colors - too many to fit! 

the link Jon posted shows some of the unshowable colors but quite a few are misidentified.

ETA:
here is a chocolate mantle and a trio of blue mantles, since those were asked about.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

jdatwood said:


> Here's one place you could look. You'll have to scroll down a bit on the first page...
> Dane Color Chart


I've totally been on that site before! Last December I was looking at all of the different dane colors. I thought it was SO interesting.

Yea. That is DEFINITELY the site that I was on last December. That was the site that confirmed my dislike of those rope toys. One of their danes had a bunch of those threads gather in her stomach. She was two.


----------



## DaneMama

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I've totally been on that site before! Last December I was looking at all of the different dane colors. I thought it was SO interesting.
> 
> Yea. That is DEFINITELY the site that I was on last December. That was the site that confirmed my dislike of those rope toys. One of their danes had a bunch of those threads gather in her stomach. She was two.


Not only was the Dane young, but she was also pregnant. Both mother and all puppies were lost from that rope toy. So tragic....


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

DaneMama said:


> Not only was the Dane young, but she was also pregnant. Both mother and all puppies were lost from that rope toy. So tragic....


That's right. I completely forgot about the pregnancy...

I think that those toys might have had a hand in the death of my first dobie.


----------



## bernadettelevis

I have a question. I just lokked at a few Dane rescue site here in Austria and Germany and saw quite a few totally white Danes who were all deaf.
If i got that right, they are double merles or???
And are the totally white ones always deaf or blind or is there just a grest chance that they are?


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

I don't think they ALWAYS are but I think they usually are. Linsey and Natalie will probably be able to confirm or deny this though. I just know that a lot of the ones turned in are because people aren't willing to put in the effort of caring for a blind and/or deaf dane. I know this issue is also in dachshunds. I don't know about Aussies but is it the same for them? I know my mom had a deaf Aussie who was all white. Her name was White Buffalo (they called her White Buff or just Buff) but she ended up giving her to her friend who had experience in training deaf dogs and he turned her into a well respected, obedient Aussie. He had her until the day she died.


----------



## bernadettelevis

-i think it's also the same with totally or mostly white Dalmatians


----------



## danecolor

white great danes can have several different genotypes (ie. there can be a couple different gene combinations that produce white-colored great danes). 

however, the most common "type" of white (and the one most likely to be paired with blindness and deafness) is a double-merle harlequin. a normal harlequin great dane has one copy of the harlequin modifier (Hh) and one copy of merle (Mm). imagine the dog starting out as a merle (Mm) and the harlequin modifier (H) comes in and removes all the grey, leaving only the black patches on a white background. that is how a harlequin is "made."

dogs that have two copies of the merle gene (MM) are called merlequins or "double merles." when two copies of the merle gene are at work in a dog, the extra copy of merle reduces pigment even more, leaving a dog that usually appears to be white with merle patches. these merlequins can also be deaf or blind, but they less commonly have sensory defects than an actual white dog. generally, the more merle pigment on the merlequin and the less white, the more likely they are to have normal sight and hearing.

however, when those merlequin dogs (MM) also end up with a copy of the harlequin modifier (Hh), the harlequin modifier goes in and removes any of the already-reduced amount of grey in the merle patches. this can leave a white dog with a few black speckles to a completely white dog, depending on how much merle would have been present on the dog to begin with. these are the dogs that are most commonly blind and deaf. there are completely white dogs that have been reported as having completely normal sight and hearing, but the vast majority of these double-merle harlequins (HhMM) end up with some degree of sensory impairment.

so, as a summary:

hhMm = merle (no harlequin modifier, one copy of merle, normal senses) 







HhMm = harlequin (one harlequin modifier, one copy of merle, normal senses)







hhMM = merlequin (no harlequin modifier, two copies of merle, at risk of sensory defects)







HhMM = double-merle harlequin/white (one harlequin modifier, two copies of merle, sensory defects are expected)


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Geez... you know a LOT about dane color genetics. How does mantle come about, whether it be chocolate, blue, black, merle, etc?


----------



## xellil

i didn't too too well in my genetics class in school. Now i remember why 

All I know is - don't breed two double dapples!


----------



## danecolor

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Geez... you know a LOT about dane color genetics. How does mantle come about, whether it be chocolate, blue, black, merle, etc?


dane color genetics (oddly specific as it is) is one of my favorite topics :biggrin:

mantle comes about from one of two different patterns, or the combination of both. there is the true-irish mantle pattern, and then the pseudo-irish mantle pattern, which is actually a dog with only one copy of the gene for piebald (Ss).

the pseudo-irish mantle:
one copy of the piebald gene (Ss) produces the pseudo-irish mantle, two copies of the piebald gene (ss) produce a piebald, and no copies of the piebald gene (SS) produce a solid-colored dog (a dog with less than 10% white on the body). pseudo-irish mantles can produce a dog that looks like a normal mantle, but there will usually be breaks in the blanket, markings tend to be asymmetrical, and there will tend to be more white on the dog over all. 

the true-irish mantle:
the true-irish mantle is caused by two recessive genes (ff). it is thought that one copy of the recessive gene (Ff) leads to dogs with an excessive amount of white, but not enough to give the typical mantle appearance. two copies of the dominant gene, then, would be a solid-colored dog (FF).

in combination:
a dog that is purely true-irish mantle without the influence of piebald (SSff) will tend to be on the more heavily marked end of the mantle spectrum. a dog that has both patterns at play (Ssff) will be on the very lightly marked end of the spectrum. a dog that is a pseudo-irish mantle without the total influence of the true-irish pattern (SsFF or SsFf) will fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum in regards to the amount of white. the piebald gene is not very consistent, however, so there can be many different degrees of markings for the same genotype whenever piebald is involved.

it is important to remember that mantle is a pattern, not a color. therefore, the actual colored areas on a mantle can be pretty much anything, depending on what other genes are at play. you can have merle mantles, blue mantles, chocolate mantles, brindle mantles, harlequins with the mantle pattern (no spots on legs, chest, muzzle, etc.), fawn mantles, brindle merle mantles ... the list goes on and on.

so to recap, mantle works as a spectrum, depending on the interaction of the pseudo-irish mantle pattern and the true-irish mantle pattern.

ETA: here are some puppies where you can clearly see the piebald "pseudo-irish" influence, whether due to breaks in blankets or asymmetry.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Dog Coat Colour Genetics

How does this site do at explaining? You, with your passion, would know. If it is accurate, then I want to go back and actually read it. There are a TON of colors found in all breeds but this is the page that is solely danes. I just don't want to read it because I will do my best to understand it and if it isn't accurate information I will have my facts wrong and I will get confused between this information and accurate information. Hahaha.


----------



## KittyKat

Would it be safe to say that brindle is dominant over fawn colouring?


----------



## DaneMama

Fawn is recessive to brindle. In Danes it's common to hear the phrase: a fawn is a fawn is a fawn. They're the most basic of colors. This is why it's usually advantageous to breed a fawn to a brindle so you end up with both colors. Breed two fawns together and all you'll get are fawns. Breed two brindles together who are homozygous dominant for brindle and all you'll get is brindle. Breed two brindles who are heterozygous for brindle and you'll end up with both fawn and brindle (but this takes either knowing for sure what your dogs' genotypes are or genetic testing).


----------



## danecolor

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Dog Coat Colour Genetics
> 
> How does this site do at explaining? ... I just don't want to read it because I will do my best to understand it and if it isn't accurate information I will have my facts wrong and I will get confused between this information and accurate information. Hahaha.


i love this website because it goes into detail about uncommon colors that most dane genetics websites ignore or gloss over. the information about the S locus is out of date - the true-irish spotting pattern (mantle) was recently discovered to not be located at the S locus. the S locus consists of the piebald gene only (SS=solid, Ss=pseudo-irish mantle, ss=piebald). if they were actually talking about an S locus "pseudo-mantle" the genotype would be Ss not ss. 

they also do not include the tan point pattern, which does exist in danes. it is just not common.

however, with those things in mind, i think it is still worth a read. the pictures are helpful for visualizing what is explained.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Ok. So I think I will give that a read. I will need to go through the glossary to since I have no idea what a locus is. I don't know much about genetics and I think it is fascinating especially when you find a particular breed you like.


----------

