# Coat Color



## Herzo

Ok I'm finely starting this. I can't seem to keep up with all the reading and the little posting I do. How do you people do it? Now on coat color I guess I don't see the harm in breeding the chocolate coloring. I'm going to guess there is nothing wrong with it genetically or you two wouldn't be using Moose. Why if a color comes out from a recessive gene would it be bad? I guess I don't see why they pick certain colors to ban.

I think when dogs were first being bred for certain things they had preferred colors they liked and they had to pick for color so why is it bad now. I mean if you breed two chocolates and you know you will get a blind or something but if not whats wrong with it. Why would the standard not let it be shown. Would that not be long back someones personal opinion?

On what Loki Love said, that the standard is there for a reason what is that? If you were breeding say you wanted Black pups. And that is a color that the AKC will accept. You use two black dogs but that is seen as ok. But if you want chocolate that's not. I can't see the dif. Why ban some colors? If indeed the color comes out as of course it obviously does why is this dog inferior? And I will also guess that it can't be registered.

I'm sure the breed clubs are the ones that set these standards but why?


----------



## CorgiPaws

It's an uphill battle that advocates for these "off colors" will never win. See, sticklers to the breed standard say ALL THE TIME that the color standard is there for a reason, and that it should be stuck to. The thing is, for MOST breeds, the colors banned from standard are colors that are linked to genetic disease, blindness, deafness, or colors that do not naturally exist in pure form of that breed, so therefore a dog of a different breed has been brought in somewhere, making that dog not a purebred. 
With danes, however, the standard only allows a handful of the NATURALLY OCCURRING coat colors and patters within the breed. There are absolutely NO health problems linked to these colors, save for pups from a double merle (or double harl) breeding lacking pigment having a risk of being (or going) deaf and/or blind. Dogs of these colors are in fact every bit as much of a dane as a black, fawn, brindle, or harl. 
Many argue that "off colors" are only obtained using inferior dogs because no "reputable and ethical" breeder would ever contribute to such breeding practices. This is a worry some point of view to me, because it goes to suggest that the ONLY danes worth breeding are those that come from a handful of bloodlines, which is EXTREME limitation of the gene pool. I have seen pedigrees in which hold a CH after several generations of NO titles. I've seen "off colors" with excellent form and disposition. 
To be quite frank, I have absolutely EVERY intention of breeding Mousse provided he has suitable results for hips, elbows, heart, and eye tests. I FULLY intend to breed him to another suitable female who has ALSO proven herself healthy and sound through health testing. I won't breed specifically for "off" colors, but rather for health, conformation, and temperament with color entirely disregarded, save for breedings with higher risk of defective pups. If these colors were not naturally occurring, or if they carried health risks, then I would be far more understanding of why they are "frowned upon" but neither are the case. 
I am prepared to be flamed. I have a backbone. I am confident in the choices I've made and where I stand on the issue. To anyone who objects: I can respect their opinion, but take it with a grain of salt. 

Why? 
Because this dog:









is every bit of a dane as this dog:










save for the fact the first is prettier, of course. :biggrin:

**ETA: YES, Chocolates and other out-of-standard colors ARE registrable because they are naturally occurring patters and colors in a purebred great dane. They are not showable in conformation, obviously.


----------



## BrownieM

This thread makes no sense to me! Is this a spin off of something?????????


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> This thread makes no sense to me! Is this a spin off of something?????????


It was moved from Mousse's picture thread, so as to not hijack it into a color debate. 
Color debate can more appropriately take place here.


----------



## DaneMama

Herzo said:


> Ok I'm finely starting this. I can't seem to keep up with all the reading and the little posting I do. How do you people do it?


There are two ways to easily catch up with posts. One way is the "What's new" button at the top which will give you all the updated threads since the last time you visited the forum. OR there's the "Today's Posts" which gives you all the threads updated within the last 24 hours. I used the "whats new" more often than anything.



> Now on coat color I guess I don't see the harm in breeding the chocolate coloring. I'm going to guess there is nothing wrong with it genetically or you two wouldn't be using Moose. Why if a color comes out from a recessive gene would it be bad? I guess I don't see why they pick certain colors to ban.


There are only two genes that carry for physical disease in the Great Danes. First is the merle gene which is carried by harlequins, whites and merles (harlequins and merles are the same genotypically but different phenotypically). The merle gene when doubled up (ie double merle dogs) cause deafness and/or blindness. Not all double merled dogs are white, but can be merlequin (pictured below). Typically they lack in overall pigmentation. Breeding any dog that carries the merle gene must be done with great caution to NOT produce double merle dogs. BUT breeding two dogs that both carry the merle gene is frequently done to produce lighter marked harlequins (pictured below) who conform to the breed standard better who also do better in the show ring. Unfortunately these crosses produce double merle dogs frequently who are either culled at birth, or given to "pet only" homes that don't necessarily know how to take care of a deaf dog (a lot of these dogs end up in rescue). Its a double edged sword, because merle X merle crossings produce properly marked harls but also double merles. 

Merlequin (NOT a good rep of the breed):









Lightly marked Harl:









The other gene that carries for blind/deaf is the piebald gene which is called "white factoring" meaning it pretty much produces the same lack of body pigment. Piebald Danes (pictured below) can come in many different patters, some that look like harls (pictured below) but are actually genetically piebald and thus are "white factored". Even mantle Danes can carry for piebald but still do well in the show ring (pictured below). A lot of these dogs that are shown as harls are actually piebalds, being mistakingly registered as harls. If two dogs are bred together that carry the piebald gene, 25% of the resulting pups will be lacking in body pigment and thus blind/deaf. So, once again these "white factored" dogs must be bred with care. 

Piebald:









Mantle Dane that carries for piebald (note the "torn" blanket on his back):









Piebald Harl:









Both merle carrying dogs and piebald carrying dogs MUST be bred to a NON carrier. Harls and merles should not be bred to another harl/merle. And piebalds in any form shouldn't be bred to another piebald carrier. BUT they are bred quite regularly because they produce better "marked" show dogs. 

Recessive genes aren't bad just because they are recessive. Fawn is recessive to brindle, blue is recessive to black...yet all four of these colors are within the breed standard to be shown. Recessive nature of genes aren't what disqualifies the particular dog, its JUST the color their coat happens to be. 



> I think when dogs were first being bred for certain things they had preferred colors they liked and they had to pick for color so why is it bad now. I mean if you breed two chocolates and you know you will get a blind or something but if not whats wrong with it. Why would the standard not let it be shown. Would that not be long back someones personal opinion?


You're absolutely right. Chocolate Danes were once shown in the ring but that was a LONG time ago. Chocolate wasn't well liked in the show ring for whatever reason, and there was "bred out" of the gene pool. Which is why the chocolate recessive gene in Danes is so rare. It pops up randomly here and there now. Mousse is from a mixed color pedigree. One side is strictly brindle/fawn and the other is strictly blue/black. The chocolate gene came from the blue/black side because chocolate is just another dilution to the black gene (blue is also recessive and a "dilution" gene). 

Its not "allowed" because its not in the Great Dane Club of America's breed standard for coat color. Its all based on opinion because even chocolate Danes can conform to the breed standard besides their coat color. For me the conformation standard is only in regards to body shape, size, substance and movement. Coat color and the breed standard mean nothing to me OTHER than NOT breeding two dogs together that are either merle or piebald carriers.



> On what Loki Love said, that the standard is there for a reason what is that? If you were breeding say you wanted Black pups. And that is a color that the AKC will accept. You use two black dogs but that is seen as ok. But if you want chocolate that's not. I can't see the dif. Why ban some colors? If indeed the color comes out as of course it obviously does why is this dog inferior? And I will also guess that it can't be registered.


The breed standards are there as a guideline to produce the most correctly conforming dogs to that standard. I think its a highly useful tool because it can show you exactly what to look for and how to pick the best dogs to breed together, which ones compliment each other and which ones will just perpetuate incorrect dogs. BUT in regards to color alone, the standard is meaningless to me. 

The coat color standard IS there for a reason. And that is because it promotes conformity and produces predictable results. If you want predictable puppies, then stick to the standard. This is useful if you are breeding for the soul purpose of producing show dogs. Why take the chance of getting a whole bunch of mismarked Danes that can't be shown? Most show breeders goal is to produce as many champion dogs as possible and if they stray from the standard their chances of doing so dwindle. Every breeder has their own goals, and mine wont be to conform to the standard in regards to coat color. 



> I'm sure the breed clubs are the ones that set these standards but why?


Correct again, the Great Dane Club of America is the one that sets the standards. Well....its because they are the ones that run the Dane show dog business.


----------



## danecolor

canine coat color genetics is something i am extremely passionate about. i catalog pictures of great danes in any of the 100+ colors they come in, and i wrote a 29 page paper about great dane genetics with illustrated punnet squares for fun. i am a little crazy about genetics so i just have to jump in on this thread, though PuppyPaws and DaneMama have made very comprehensive posts already.

there are only two color-related health problems in great danes. 

the first is *color dilution alopecia* which can affect dogs with two copies of the dilute gene ("dd"). 

this is the gene that causes blues and dilute chocolates/lilacs (which is a dog with two copies of the dilution gene and two copies of the chocolate gene "bbdd", the color of a weimaraner). 

not all blues and lilacs have this issue. it is believe to be caused by a recessive gene and should be preventable by not breeding dogs with the disease in their lines. it is far more common in dobermans than in danes.

sensory defects (*deafness and merle ocular dysgenesis*) are the other color-related issue found in danes. deafness is caused by the lack of pigment in the inner ear which prevents the proper transmission of vibrations that the brain interprets as sound.

merle ocular dysgenesis is a term that encompasses a variety of eye defects caused by two copies of the merle gene (“MM”).

harlequins, merles, merlequins, and whites all carry at least one copies of the merle gene. dogs with only one copy of the merle gene (merles and harlequins) suffer no ill effects from the gene. 

harlequins are merles which have an additional modifier, removing the grey pigment of merles and leaving a white background with black patches (a merle is “Mmhh” while a harl is “MmHh”).

a merlequin has two copies of the merle gene (MMhh) which increases the amount of white pigment on the dog, also increasing the risk for sensory defects. 

white dogs, which almost always have sensory defects, are usually double merle harlequins (MMHh). the double copy of merle in addition to the harlequin modifier removes almost all pigment on a dog.

two copies of the harl modifier produces a “lethal white” which causes the puppy to be reabsorbed in utero or born dead.

all of these issues can be avoided completely by simply not breeding harl to harl, merle to merle, or merle to harl.

a merle to merle breeding will produce:
•	25% merlequins (which have a higher risk for sensory defects but are also often normal)
•	50% merles
•	25% solid color (black)

harlequins, which are merles with a modifier, are the ones that produce white puppies with defects when bred together. out of a harlequin to harlequin breeding:
•	25% of puppies will be reabsorbed in utero
•	25% will be harlequin
•	3/16 puppies (18.75%) will be solid (black)
•	2/16 puppies (12.5%) will be white with a very high risk for sensory defects
•	12.5% will be merlequin (at some risk for sensory defects)
•	1/16 puppies (6.25%) will be merle

a merle bred to a harlequin would produce:
•	25% merle
•	25% harlequin
•	25% solid (black)
•	12.5% merlequin
•	12.5% white

so honestly, the only problems related to color in the breed can be easily avoided by responsible selection of breeding partners.

piebald does not directly produce any problems. however, since it removes a great deal of pigment from a dog (mostly leaving pigment centered around the head) it can contribute to the likelihood of a dog being deaf when in combination with other genes that remove pigment like merle and harlequin. for example, a piebald harlequin may have a greater risk of being deaf than a harlequin without the piebald gene who has more pigment.

chocolate is a simple dilution of black, just like blue is. the only difference is that when the breed standard was created, blue was chosen to be included and chocolate was not. 

i personally do not believe color should be given the huge focus it is in the breed today. if a breeder is health testing dogs; doing something with the dogs (such as agility, conformation, dock dogs, hunting, etc.); and breeding toward solid conformation, temperament and longevity, the color of the dogs being mated is of no concern to me other than aesthetic preferences I may have.

i find it a bit disappointing that breeding harl to harl is considered acceptable in the breed, though it produces defective puppies, but breeding colors that fall outside the color guidelines of the GDCA is vehemently opposed, though a chocolate is no less healthy than a brindle or fawn.


----------



## DaneMama

> i personally do not believe color should be given the huge focus it is in the breed today. if a breeder is health testing dogs; doing something with the dogs (such as agility, conformation, dock dogs, hunting, etc.); and breeding toward solid conformation, temperament and longevity, the color of the dogs being mated is of no concern to me other than aesthetic preferences I may have.
> 
> 
> i find it a bit disappointing that breeding harl to harl is considered acceptable in the breed, though it produces defective puppies, but breeding colors that fall outside the color guidelines of the GDCA is vehemently opposed, though a chocolate is no less healthy than a brindle or fawn.


Can I just say that its a pleasure having you here on DFC?! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Health, temperament, and THEN conformation are important to me. Its nice to have someone else that has a similar view and actually GETS it. I love talking and researching Dane color genetics as well :wink: :thumb:

And yes, I completely agree that the GDCA standard is less than ideal when it comes to acceptable crosses. I would personally like to see more responsible breeders out there actually working outside the conformed standards....I think its pretty far down the road unfortunately. Most of the people "experimenting" with coat color crosses out there really ARE doing it just for the money and the "rarity" effect which just irks me beyond belief.


----------



## BrownieM

Interesting to read about coat colors that are/are not accepted in Danes. I think it is interesting that a solid color would not be accepted, that just doesn't make sense to me! But, that's because I am familiar with poodles, where all solid colors (including dilute solids) are accepted but no parti-colors, mismarks, merles, what have you, are accepted. There is no health based reason why mismarks and parti-color poodles are not included in breed standard. However, because of this, most breeders who breed *for* parti-colors are not responsible breeders. More often than not they are trying to make more money by breeding a rare color. I can think of one responsible breeder who breeds parti-colors. She tries to increase the genetic diversity of the partis and improve their conformation as well as health and temperament. This is not an easy task, though, as these colors are more heavily inbred and have more health issues because they are not part of breed standard and thus are not part of the breeding program of the majority of poodle breeders.

ETA: It's also funny because I am so used to breed specific forums. When I hear a brown dog being referred to as "chocolate" I immediately feel the need to correct. (There is no "chocolate" in the poodle breed. Only "brown" and the dilutions of brown). Then I have to remind myself, it's OK in other breeds. He he!


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaneMama said:


> Most of the people "experimenting" with coat color crosses out there really ARE doing it just for the money and the "rarity" effect which just irks me beyond belief.


This is part of the fuel to my fire. 
I feel like there are SO many people that want these beautiful dogs, but unfortunately it's hard to find a well-bred one from a breeder who ACTUALLY gives a damn and does health testing and all that jazz. So, they have two options generally. 1. Never have the color dog they actually want. or 2. go to a less-than-ideal breeder who breeds for color and only color. 
This situation is flawed. I think there ought to be more breeders who recognize the flaws in the color standard, and break down the barriers between color families, and place their priorities with temperament, health, and form and throw color right out the window. 
That's my plan, anyway...


----------



## DaneMama

BrownieM said:


> Interesting to read about coat colors that are/are not accepted in Danes. I think it is interesting that a solid color would not be accepted, that just doesn't make sense to me! But, that's because I am familiar with poodles, where all solid colors (including dilute solids) are accepted but no parti-colors or mismarks are accepted. There is no health based reason why mismarks and parti-color poodles are not included in breed standard. However, because of this, most breeders who breed *for* parti-colors are not responsible breeders. More often than not they are trying to make more money by breeding a rare color.


I honestly don't understand why some colors are accepted and others are not...other than for the predictability standpoint. There are only 5 colors accepted for Danes, because they are predictable results from breeding. Who knows, maybe the GDCA is lazy and doesn't want to come up with 100+ breed standards for all the different coat colors LOL

If there were health problems linked to certain colors then I can see it being a terrible thing to select for those colors. But just because they aren't accepted in the show ring? Thats not enough for me to disregard them personally.


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> Interesting to read about coat colors that are/are not accepted in Danes. I think it is interesting that a solid color would not be accepted, that just doesn't make sense to me! But, that's because I am familiar with poodles, where all solid colors (including dilute solids) are accepted but no parti-colors or mismarks are accepted. There is no health based reason why mismarks and parti-color poodles are not included in breed standard. However, because of this, most breeders who breed *for* parti-colors are not responsible breeders. More often than not they are trying to make more money by breeding a rare color. I can think of one responsible breeder who breeds parti-colors. She tries to increase the genetic diversity of the partis and improve their conformation as well as health and temperament. This is not an easy task, though, as these colors are more heavily inbred and have more health issues because they are not part of breed standard and thus are not part of the breeding program of the majority of poodle breeders.


How would you feel about a poodle breeder who did ALL applicable health testing, had dogs who did conform to standard in all other areas, and did, say... agility.. with their dogs, BUT did produce these off colors?


----------



## danecolor

DaneMama said:


> Can I just say that its a pleasure having you here on DFC?! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Health, temperament, and THEN conformation are important to me. Its nice to have someone else that has a similar view and actually GETS it. I love talking and researching Dane color genetics as well :wink: :thumb:


thank you very much :redface: i am quite excited to have found a community as welcoming and forward-thinking as this one. 



DaneMama said:


> And yes, I completely agree that the GDCA standard is less than ideal when it comes to acceptable crosses. I would personally like to see more responsible breeders out there actually working outside the conformed standards....I think its pretty far down the road unfortunately. Most of the people "experimenting" with coat color crosses out there really ARE doing it just for the money and the "rarity" effect which just irks me beyond belief.


i think sometimes the hardest part is moving past the comfort of familiarity and the "this is how we've always done it" attitudes. a lot of justification for the way things are currently done comes from the fact that it is the way things have always been, nothing more. i find all of the colors occurring in great danes to be beautiful and i eagerly await the day when i will be able to purchase a less common color from a truly ethical breeder with his or her priorities straight.

it is a shame that so many shoddy breeders take advantage of the rarity of some of these color to build a program based on profiting from the color of the puppies they produce alone. it is detrimental because current "mismark" colors automatically become associated with bad breeders.


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> How would you feel about a poodle breeder who did ALL applicable health testing, had dogs who did conform to standard in all other areas, and did, say... agility.. with their dogs, BUT did produce these off colors?


Very few of these that exist. I probably wouldn't believe my eyes, to be honest. If a responsible breeder unintentionally produced an off-color dog, I'd have no problem buying the puppy as a pet. But if a breeder truthfully was trying to improve the health, genetic diversity (because this is an issue in partis), conformation (major issue in partis) and temperament, then sure, I might give them a chance. 

Unfortunately, it almost always is puppy mills or bybs who have no regard for the breed standard that are breeding these off colors. 

I'm sick so I'm not elaborating very well.


----------



## danecolor

BrownieM said:


> Very few of these that exist. I probably wouldn't believe my eyes, to be honest.
> 
> But if a breeder truthfully was trying to improve the health, genetic diversity (because this is an issue in partis), conformation (major issue in partis) and temperament, then sure, I might give them a chance.
> 
> Unfortunately, it almost always is puppy mills or bybs who have no regard for the breed standard that are breeding these off colors.


this is, i believe, one of the biggest roadblocks for those wishing to incorporate more colors into the accepted color spectrum in danes. so many breeders who are breeding non-standard colors are unethical and only in it for the rarity selling point that off-colors have become inextricably associated with bad breeders, even though there is nothing wrong with the colors themselves.


----------



## Loki Love

PuppyPaws said:


> To be quite frank, I have absolutely EVERY intention of breeding Mousse provided he has suitable results for hips, elbows, heart, and eye tests. I FULLY intend to breed him to another suitable female who has ALSO proven herself healthy and sound through health testing.


You haven't mentioned temperament? How are you proving your Danes are breeding material? It's not all about the health tests - a good breeder and a good buyer will recognize that.

While I can give you the benefit of the doubt and even potentially agree that perhaps the scope of colours should be expanded within the Dane standard - but until it is - anyone thinking they are above and beyond said standard is doing a disservice to this breed that they claim to love. Work with clubs to have the standard changed if you're that unhappy with it. Doesn't that make more sense?


----------



## DaneMama

danecolor said:


> this is, i believe, one of the biggest roadblocks for those wishing to incorporate more colors into the accepted color spectrum in danes. so many breeders who are breeding non-standard colors are unethical and only in it for the rarity selling point that off-colors have become inextricably associated with bad breeders, even though there is nothing wrong with the colors themselves.


Exactly. I looked, and looked, and looked for a breeder who bred off colors as ethically as I'd like them to. They just simply don't exist. Which is probably our most motivating factor do "break down" the color barriers between the color families with our breeding program as ethically as possible. We will still be flamed for straying from the standard and deemed "unethical" for the simple fact of NOT producing standard colors, but both Linsey and I can take the heat :wink:


----------



## Savage Destiny

I'm having a ton of fun reading up on Dane colors. Mousse is gorgeous, I've never seen that color on a Dane before! 

As far as "off" colors go, I'm a bit half and half. On the one hand, I think health and temperament testing are by far the most important things to breed for. But conformation is also important. There's a part of me that says, "How can one be sure a dog fits the breed standard if it can't be shown?" Then I think of some truly horrible representations of different breeds I've seen with Ch titles, and wonder if it even matters. 

In my breed, the American Pit Bull Terrier, I am VERY against off color dogs being bred. Simply because there is only one off standard color in the breed, which is merle. Merle APBTs are, well, not APBTs. Its not a recessive gene in the breed, it is a nonexistent one. So any "APBT" that is merle has another breed somewhere in the background, most commonly Catahoula.


----------



## DaneMama

Loki Love said:


> You haven't mentioned temperament? How are you proving your Danes are breeding material? It's not all about the health tests - a good breeder and a good buyer will recognize that.


Mousse has a wonderful temperament. He's been with us for just over a week and is a total gentleman. He's still learning the ropes of our home, but a wonderful dog and your typical Dane personality. 

Same goes for the rest of our girls are wonderful dogs as well. We wouldn't breed a dog that has obvious temperament problems. We are breeding with the thought of the most wonderful family pet one could ask for. It would be a disservice to breed dogs who are high strung, overly crazy, or aggressive. We are selecting for dogs who are gentle, smart, and even tempered family dogs. Because that is what MOST people are wanting in a dog to live in their home. 



> While I can give you the benefit of the doubt and even potentially agree that perhaps the scope of colours should be expanded within the Dane standard - but until it is - anyone thinking they are above and beyond said standard is doing a disservice to this breed that they claim to love. Work with clubs to have the standard changed if you're that unhappy with it. Doesn't that make more sense?


Why is it a disservice? You cannot say that it is without an explanation of why...

The breed clubs are the ones that are so vehemently against out crosses between color families. It would be like a 5 year old asking his mom for $1 million...it just wouldn't happen. Are you familiar with DOL forum?


----------



## CorgiPaws

Loki Love said:


> You haven't mentioned temperament? How are you proving your Danes are breeding material? It's not all about the health tests - a good breeder and a good buyer will recognize that.
> 
> While I can give you the benefit of the doubt and even potentially agree that perhaps the scope of colours should be expanded within the Dane standard - but until it is - anyone thinking they are above and beyond said standard is doing a disservice to this breed that they claim to love. Work with clubs to have the standard changed if you're that unhappy with it. Doesn't that make more sense?


My apologies for not mentioning temperament in this thread, I have mentioned it in many in the past, but this one being specifically about color, I stuck to color. It is not all about health tests, I certainly know that. Breeding is a package deal with many elements to be considered. I am not ignorant of that fact for one second. 
I do in fact intend to work towards CGC titles for my dogs. 
Let me get this straight. Thinking that the color standard is bogus NOW is a disservice, but should the standard ever change (which it wont) thinking that way will then be okay? My apologies, but the way I think and feel is very valid, and other peoples opinions will not change my mind. Anyone who questions the standard in the show circle is immediately shot down and flamed. It's a battle that to me isn't worth fighting. I do not need anyone's "approval" of my opinion, therefore why put my effort into getting it? Producing healthy, sound, beautiful dogs is not a disservice last I checked. 

I am a firm believer that there are a million breeders in this world, and if someone is uncomfortable with the way I do things, they can go elsewhere.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Savage Destiny said:


> I'm having a ton of fun reading up on Dane colors. Mousse is gorgeous, I've never seen that color on a Dane before!
> 
> As far as "off" colors go, I'm a bit half and half. On the one hand, I think health and temperament testing are by far the most important things to breed for. But conformation is also important. There's a part of me that says, "How can one be sure a dog fits the breed standard if it can't be shown?" Then I think of some truly horrible representations of different breeds I've seen with Ch titles, and wonder if it even matters.
> 
> In my breed, the American Pit Bull Terrier, I am VERY against off color dogs being bred. Simply because there is only one off standard color in the breed, which is merle. Merle APBTs are, well, not APBTs. Its not a recessive gene in the breed, it is a nonexistent one. So any "APBT" that is merle has another breed somewhere in the background, most commonly Catahoula.



I think the color debate and where people stand on the issue varies GREATLY with their breed of choice and WHY the standard is implemented to begin with. 
I can entirely understand being against it for your breed, because it is not a naturally occurring color in your breed and an obvious sign of mixed breeding. I can also understand it where the color carries health risks. 
Where neither apply, I think it's just silly.


----------



## danecolor

Savage Destiny said:


> But conformation is also important. There's a part of me that says, "How can one be sure a dog fits the breed standard if it can't be shown?" Then I think of some truly horrible representations of different breeds I've seen with Ch titles, and wonder if it even matters.


i tend to think of this issue like a spectrum. there are dogs that are shown to their Ch who are astounding examples of their breed, there are dogs shown to their Ch who are terrible examples of the breed and earned their title by "playing the system," there are dogs who are not shown or cannot be shown who are accurately evaluated by their owner/breeder (and ideally a second or third party) and are astounding examples of the breed, and there are dogs who are not or cannot be shown who are not good examples of their breed but are evaluated by a breeder/owner who is biased and bred anyway. 

whether showing or not, it is extremely important not to allow oneself to become biased and ideally evaluate the dog in some sort of impartial venue no matter what the color.


----------



## DaneMama

I especially dislike the reality of the matter that some show Danes just have to wait til the right opportunity to get their CH title. It may take years but gosh darnit...they will win those titles! Even though they aren't really CH worthy. I think dogs that are actually CH material are the only ones who should win the title. If it takes forever to CH a dog...they aren't CH material. This does not mean that I believe that a dog MUST be a CH to be bred. Not at all. Just that the show business world is highly flawed.


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaneMama said:


> I especially dislike the reality of the matter that some show Danes just have to wait til the right opportunity to get their CH title. It may take years but gosh darnit...they will win those titles! Even though they aren't really CH worthy. I think dogs that are actually CH material are the only ones who should win the title. If it takes forever to CH a dog...they aren't CH material. This does not mean that I believe that a dog MUST be a CH to be bred. Not at all. Just that the show business world is highly flawed.


You mean a 4 year old roach or saddle backed Dane with a pointy face isn't CH material? 
But... but... but... they got the title!
THEM ARE CH!


----------



## danecolor

DaneMama said:


> I especially dislike the reality of the matter that some show Danes just have to wait til the right opportunity to get their CH title. It may take years but gosh darnit...they will win those titles! Even though they aren't really CH worthy. I think dogs that are actually CH material are the only ones who should win the title. If it takes forever to CH a dog...they aren't CH material. This does not mean that I believe that a dog MUST be a CH to be bred. Not at all. Just that the show business world is highly flawed.


this is exactly why i am not a die hard for Ch titles (though i was when i first got into the breed :becky: ). 

showing is certainly a good tool but when people take advantage of the system, a Ch title can lose its significance completely. the only thing a Ch title guarantees is that a breeder is invested in the dog. it can also signify a quality representative of the breed but that is not always the case. just as the absence of a Ch title does not automatically mean a dog is of lesser quality than a dog with the title. 

the whole picture is what matters, getting hung up on conformation titles alone is just as much a disservice as breeding dogs without concern for conformation at all.


----------



## DaneMama

danecolor said:


> this is exactly why i am not a die hard for Ch titles (though i was when i first got into the breed :becky: ).
> 
> showing is certainly a good tool but when people take advantage of the system, a Ch title can lose its significance completely. the only thing a Ch title guarantees is that a breeder is invested in the dog. it can also signify a quality representative of the breed but that is not always the case. just as the absence of a Ch title does not automatically mean a dog is not of equal quality to a dog with the title.


I was too really into the CH title on a Dane, but have since changed my attitude. Spending a day at a dog show watching the Danes a few weeks ago just made it sink in just a little more. Its true that a CH Dane has a dedicated owner, but that doesn't always mean dedicated in the right way, unfortunately. I saw a lot of abuse at the show that just made me sick.


----------



## Savage Destiny

PuppyPaws said:


> I think the color debate and where people stand on the issue varies GREATLY with their breed of choice and WHY the standard is implemented to begin with.
> I can entirely understand being against it for your breed, because it is not a naturally occurring color in your breed and an obvious sign of mixed breeding. I can also understand it where the color carries health risks.
> Where neither apply, I think it's just silly.


For the most part, I think it is silly too, as long as the breeders are responsible, doing health testing and such. I LOATHE it when an off standard colour is touted as "rare" and bred/sold by idiots for big bucks. Heck, I hate it with standard colors. In APBTs, blue is often cited by moron breeders as "rare" (even though it is not rare or even uncommon) and sold for stupidly high prices. Unfortunately the dilute colors like blue often come with skin problems (which are a problem in the breed anyway), but becuase of the $$ blue is becoming the "in thing".


----------



## nikkiluvsu15

Interesting about Dane colors. I never knew there were so many, honestly! I do know that my mom really misses having a Dane around the house though... they are so beautiful <3 

One thing I'm glad is that the Vizlsa only has one color (different shades though) :biggrin: LOL Well that and there isn't a split in the V world - pretty much all Vizslas are versatile, which is something I love. I have such a hard time deciding what to do for my next Lab because of bench vs field, very few do BOTH of those, so its very hard to find a Lab breeder that I absolutely adore.


----------



## Angelwing

I'm not really sure why chocolate danes are not breed standard (and no one here really knows either?) but there must be a reason. Personally, I think if breeders are deviating away from breed standard then I would be inclined to stay far, far away from them. It's kind of like large colour spots showing up on the bodies of sealys - that is NOT allowed, the only colour can be on the head. Yes, the more colour on the head, the bigger chance of producing puppies with coloured markings on the body (which some breeders will say that the colour is 'worth' it as all white dogs can mean deaf puppies). But breeders who continue to use dogs that produce those body coloured babies or using the babies for breeding I don't agree with. But nobody really knows the colour genetics for sealyhams so it's a bit harder.


----------



## Janet At Nutro

Can you please put up some more pictures of Mousse!


----------



## DaneMama

Mousse playing with a little ball....he likes to carry things around so gently LOL














































More pictures of Mousse :thumb:


----------



## Janet At Nutro

Mousse is so handsome. Thank you for the pictures.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Angelwing said:


> I'm not really sure why chocolate danes are not breed standard (and no one here really knows either?) but there must be a reason.


That's the thing, as far as DANES are concerned, these colors are banned for NO reason other than it was someone's preference. It carries NO health concern whatsoever. There is NOT a valid reason. 
I think the color battle, again, varies breed to breed. Some breeds have very valid color bans. In the case of danes, i don't find it valid at all. Not one bit. A all. Period. 



Janet At Nutro said:


> Can you please put up some more pictures of Mousse!


Sure thing! Straight from Jon's Album... since he's still with them for now.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Lol, beat me to it!


----------



## BrownieM

Handsome boy! I have a question. I'm really not familiar with Great Danes but I noticed that Mousse has bottom eyelids that seem loose. I noticed this in my sister's Bernese Mountain Dog today, I was eyeballing him at my niece's birthday party today, so it's funny that I just noticed it in these photos. Is this normal in some breeds of dogs?

Nevermind - I was going to say something else but then I noticed somewhere else you said he had a pink inner eyelid, which totally negated what I was going to say. :smile:


----------



## DaneMama

Yes, its normal. Although some individuals have droopier inner eyelids than others. All of our Dane girls have similar eyelids to Mousse. 

There are some extreme cases of droopy eyes that I'm not a fan of and typically those are more from the European bloodlines.


----------



## BrownieM

See, all these things about other breeds I am learning here! I would be seriously concerned if I saw a poodle with droopy eyelids! But hounds have droopy eyelids and it makes sense that other breeds would too.


----------



## Janet At Nutro

Linsey thanks for the pictures. The more the better. I think Mousse is just gorgeous!


----------



## danecolor

BrownieM said:


> See, all these things about other breeds I am learning here! I would be seriously concerned if I saw a poodle with droopy eyelids! But hounds have droopy eyelids and it makes sense that other breeds would too.


danes should not have prominent haws (droopy eyes) like you see in hounds.

according to the breed standard: "_The eyelids are almond-shaped and relatively tight, with well developed brows. Haws and Mongolian eyes are serious faults._"

the mantle and the harlequin puppy in DaneMama's post are examples of danes with haws to a fault. the third eyelid showing is considered a fault but not to the extent that it would prevent a dog with otherwise solid conformation from finishing a Ch, for example. 

if you google the illustrated standard for the dane, there are pictures of correct eyes and faulty eyes.


----------



## DaneMama

Danecolor- do you know if the breed standard for eyes is different in Europe? I'm sure it would have to be. I'm not personally a fan of euro Danes so I don't actually know that much about them.


----------



## danecolor

i have always been told the the European standard and the US standard are essentially the same with only a few differences. i did a quick google search and pulled up the great dane FCI standard and it is almost identical regarding eyes interestingly enough.

"_Eyes : Of medium size with lively friendly intelligent expression. As dark as possible, almond shaped with close fitting lids. In blue dogs slightly lighter eyes are tolerated. In harlequins light eyes or two differently coloured eyes are to be tolerated._"

and under the faults category it states: "_Slack lids, haw too red. Light, piercing, amber coloured eyes. Wall eyes or differently coloured eyes in all solid coat colours. Eyes too wide apart or slit eyes. Eyes protruding or too deeply set._"

i too dislike the overdone, sloppy-looking trend among some countries in Europe. others have very nice dogs which are only slightly more muscular in build. i tend to think that the breeding of overly massive dogs causes overtaxing of joints and organ systems resulting in shorter lived dogs but obviously i have no evidence to prove that. I also don't like the excessive saggy skin on these dogs as it is heavy and pulls down the eyelids in a way that looks unhealthy to me.


----------



## DaneMama

I agree with you completely. All my girls are under 125 pounds right now, Freya may get heavier than that but not by much. Boys I prefer to be under 150 pounds. I feel that any dog bigger than that are just plain to big. I have no evidence either but I feel the bigger the dog the more unhealthy it is, generally. 

It's funny you said the harl pup I posted have haws to a fault but that puppy is now a CH dog in Russia. The picture of the adult male harl above is the same dog as the harl puppy. Maybe they are more slack with their breed standard there....


----------



## 3Musketeers

One of the many reasons I don't like the AKC or some show-dogs. Certain colors are unnacceptable for whatever reasons, yet there aren't restrains on health.

Another totally useless example, in Papillons, it's unacceptable to show blue, liver, or chocolate colored dogs. It's also not accepted to have dogs with "faulty ears" as in they either have to be fully standing, or totally drooped (Phalene) but not in between.
They must be parti-color and they cannot be mismarked, aka they have to have both ears and eyes covered by color. While neither of mine are mismarks, half of the pups were and that didn't make them inferior for any reason.
Plus, I like the non-typical colors and mismarks, as long as they aren't being purposely bred for via in-breeding, etc.
The standard for them used to be a fully colored body except for the tip of the tail and feet, kind of like the border collie pattern (or like a fox), then it changed to just particolor, so the AKC changes their mind all the time for no apparent reason other than "just because".
TBH, I love the "fox" pattern and while it's still accepted it's somewhat undesirable and pretty rare now =/.

Just stating Paps as it's the only breed (other than Salukis) I know the details on lol.
Salukis on the other hand, any color and pattern goes, I like that standard mmmm yep.


----------



## bernadettelevis

well i don'T know a lot about danes and dane standard, buti live in europe and i can tell you what i see 

Most if not all danes here have the droopy eyelids and excessive skin! And they are all huge! That'S why i just love Natalies danes! They are so beautiful! I probably wouldn't want a "european" danebut i would defenitely take one of yours .

And two weeks ago i was at a dog show and of course the Weimaraners were on saturday and i went there on sunday :/ so i watched the danes and they all had the droopy eyelids! 
I even know one dane where the eyes are just "red/pink" you can'T really see the actual eye anymore


----------



## chowder

Sometimes it appears that the AKC color standards are just totally random (along with their other standards). Lhasa Apsos are allowed to be any color at all, with grizzle, brindle, or anything in between. Yet, you will almost never see one that is black and white or being shown in that color. 

Chows are as old a breed as Lhasa's but they are restricted to 5 SOLID colors only. Everyone knows that a black Chow will have white on his tail, feathers, and ruff but the standard calls it 'silvering' and allows it (it is really WHITE!!) because some shading on those areas are allowed. They will also turn brown in any area that is exposed to the sun or has a lot of drool on it (their back, bib, and feet). A red chow will often have a black mask and ears and technically these aren't allowed unless you call it 'dark red shading'. Also, a cream chow will almost always have his nose turn pink and that is a fault, so all the cream chows in the ring have their noses colored or dyed. Everyone knows it and just looks the other way. 

There is nothing genetically wrong with a black chow with white, or a cream chow with a pink nose, it's just not allowed. 

Rocky's nose changed pink when he was about 2 years old. We still love him! :tongue:


----------



## danecolor

DaneMama said:


> It's funny you said the harl pup I posted have haws to a fault but that puppy is now a CH dog in Russia. The picture of the adult male harl above is the same dog as the harl puppy. Maybe they are more slack with their breed standard there....


it does appear that the harl puppy's eyes tightened a big with maturity but they are still saggier in the adult dog than i would prefer to see. 

i am under the impression that many dane breeders in Europe have fallen into the bad practice of breeding for the "style" that wins in the ring rather than what the breed standard explicitly calls for. this is a trend seen in many breeds in the AKC: the exaggeration of traits that win in the ring takes precedent over what is laid out in the breed standard. this is one of the issues that occurs when champion titles become more important to a breeder than what those titles should actually stand for.

i see the over-exaggeration of any trait in any breed as detrimental to the breed as a whole, which is probably why i generally dislike the overdone, massive danes common in Europe.


----------



## BrownieM

Regarding color, I have been thinking about this since yesterday, and as much as I'd like to say that I would support a breeder who bred off-color dogs and met all other requirements of a responsible breeder, I personally would never buy a puppy from a breeder like this. At least in the breed I prefer. I think that the breed standard is there for a reason. Sure, there may be colors that are not allowed, and there may be no *health* reason why these colors are disqualified, but there have to be rules and parameters. This is how you define a breed: with rules and parameters. If white poodles with brown points were allowed (they're not. They must have black points) then this would blur the lines that define the breed. 

I think that until the parent club decides to change the color regulations, I will stick to supporting breeders who breed to the standard.

I also prefer to stick with show breeders. Because in *my* experience, these are the breeders who care most about the breed, know the most about the breed, who do the most extensive health testing, adhere to the standard, raise puppies in their home, very _few_ litters a year and spend copious hours researching pedigrees to make the best match between a bitch and dog. These are the breeders who actually care if there is a health issue, who produce the most conformationally, temperamentally sound and healthy dogs. Yes, there are backward show breeders, but showing is part of the package for me. As is a breeder who abides to the breed standard, including color.

This is just me, though. I think that color is part of that package.

In my mind, a breeder who is knowingly breeding against the standard, including color, does not meet my requirements for a breeder.


----------



## Angelwing

Completely agree with you, BrownieM.



PuppyPaws said:


> That's the thing, as far as DANES are concerned, these colors are banned for NO reason other than it was someone's preference. It carries NO health concern whatsoever. There is NOT a valid reason.
> I think the color battle, again, varies breed to breed. Some breeds have very valid color bans. In the case of danes, i don't find it valid at all. Not one bit. A all. Period.


You may not find it valid but I still don't understand why you would want to breed for forbidden colours? You seem like you do everything else properly (health testing, good temperaments etc.) but why exactly would you seek out a colour that is disqualified? I can't remember if you show your other dogs or not.


----------



## Celt

I for the most part find the "color coding" of the "AKC" (it's suppose to be the recognized breed clubs who set the standards) to be rather arbitrary. It will disallow colors that don't carry health problems or affect the "look" of the breed (i.e. a black samoyed) but will allow colors that do carry health problems. Not too long ago double dapple dachshunds were allowed, even though these breedings were known to have pups born that were blind/deaf, some were even born missing eyes. In fact, it is known that you could breed one of these "disabled" dogs to a solid colored dog to guarantee dapple puppies, and unless there were "other" issues the disabled dog wouldn't pass on its "disablities". Makes you wonder who found this little fact out.And there is always "drifting" in what colors were more wanted, use to be Great Pyranese were most often solid white. It seems that recently "patched" colored dogs are more "popular".


----------



## BrownieM

Celt said:


> I for the most part find the "color coding" of the "AKC" (it's suppose to be the recognized breed clubs who set the standards) to be rather arbitrary.


Good clarification. AKC allows essentially all colors for poodles. The Poodle Club of America only allows solids. I assume there is a similar differentiation among other breeds.


----------



## danecolor

Angelwing said:


> You may not find it valid but I still don't understand why you would want to breed for forbidden colours?


i will not speak for Natalie and Lindsey and their breeding program but i would like to say a few words on this issue.

the non-standard colors in Danes have been around since the breed's origins and were once completely allowable in shows. when dog showing came to america, the colors were arbitrarily narrowed down. the unaccepted colors are not new additions to the breed from clandestine mixed breedings as is the case in some breeds, such as the Merle pit bull.

accepted colors are no healthier than those that are not accepted based on their color alone. 

these colors cannot be eliminated from the breed either as they are, in most cases, caused by recessive genes that can remain hidden for generations until two dogs with the same recessive gene are unwittingly bred together.

so in short, they have always been here, always will be, and cause no ill effects. the restriction of breeding dogs to only six acceptable colors, which are further confined to specific color families, greatly reduces the number of acceptable breeding partners for a dog, encouraging inbreeding and compromising genetic diversity.

to me, it makes sense to breed a dog to the best mate possible which compliments its partner in the best possible way, regardless of color. color should not be given such a high importance that it compromises more important aspects such as health and diversity.


----------



## Angelwing

danecolor said:


> the non-standard colors in Danes have been around since the breed's origins and were once completely allowable in shows. when dog showing came to america, the colors were arbitrarily narrowed down.


Does anyone know why exactly this came to be?



> these colors cannot be eliminated from the breed either as they are, in most cases, caused by recessive genes that can remain hidden for generations until two dogs with the same recessive gene are unwittingly bred together.


I understand that. But what I don't understand is knowingly taking a disqualified colour and purposely breeding it.



> to me, it makes sense to breed a dog to the best mate possible which compliments its partner in the best possible way, regardless of color. color should not be given such a high importance that it compromises more important aspects such as health and diversity.


I agree that health and diversity are very important, but I think sticking as closely to breed standard overall as well is important.


----------



## DaneMama

Danecolor- you're spot on with how both Linsey and I feel in regards to breeding philosophy :wink:



Angelwing said:


> Does anyone know why exactly this came to be?


It came to be that there are the three accepted "color families" in Danes because they produce predictable results. 

Blue/Black family produce blues and blacks.

Brindle/Fawn family produce brindle and fawn. 

Harl family produce harls, merles, mantles, piebalds and whites. 

Predictability is the only reason that I can come up with that is the restriction for the breed color standard. Spending time on the GDCA forum you'll learn that almost everyone loves to off standard color Danes, but shame to those who breed for them. It makes no sense. I don't understand why Danes that are just as much a Dane as any other but have a different coat color are deemed lesser. 




> I understand that. But what I don't understand is knowingly taking a disqualified colour and purposely breeding it.


Because breeding for the show ring isn't everyone's highest priority. 




> I agree that health and diversity are very important, but I think sticking as closely to breed standard overall as well is important.



Which is exactly what our plan is, regardless of color. Health, temperament and body conformation take precedence over coat color. Its not like we will be breeding Saint Danes or LabraDanes or some mix like that disregarding the breed standard altogether. Just like Mousse is as every bit of a Dane as Bailey, even though he is an off standard color.


----------



## CorgiPaws

So, for fanciers of these "off color" danes, what for them, then? Should they never have the dog of their choice? Even if that color is perfectly healthy and naturally occurring in their preferred breed? 
Is a chocolate dane any less of a dane than the brindle? Any healthier? Any more long-lived? Any less capable of being a good family pet? The answers to all of them is NO. The ONLY thing an off color dane can not do that others can is show. Perhaps if showing and the standard werent such a joke t would hold more merit to me. 

If the ONLY thing wrong with a dog that you can come up with is its color... and that color has no influence on any other aspect, I'd say you're looking at a mighty fine dog.


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> So, for fanciers of these "off color" danes, what for them, then? Should they never have the dog of their choice? Even if that color is perfectly healthy and naturally occurring in their preferred breed?
> Is a chocolate dane any less of a dane than the brindle? Any healthier? Any more long-lived? Any less capable of being a good family pet? The answers to all of them is NO. The ONLY thing an off color dane can not do that others can is show. Perhaps if showing and the standard werent such a joke t would hold more merit to me.
> 
> If the ONLY thing wrong with a dog that you can come up with is its color... and that color has no influence on any other aspect, I'd say you're looking at a mighty fine dog.


What about an incorrect tail set? A pointy face? Extra skin? Round eyes instead of oval? Does this influence the health of the dog? It's length of life? Is it still a Great Dane? Is it still a good family pet?

You see, you can't pick apart pieces of the breed standard and decide they don't apply. By doing so, you are not contributing to the set breed. You are breeding your own standard, which does seem to be your goal, but is not something that I agree with.


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> What about an incorrect tail set? A pointy face? Extra skin? Round eyes instead of oval? Does this influence the health of the dog? It's length of life? Is it still a Great Dane? Is it still a good family pet?
> 
> You see, you can't pick apart pieces of the breed standard and decide they don't apply. By doing so, you are not contributing to the set breed. You are breeding your own standard, which does seem to be your goal, but is not something that I agree with.


You see, these off colors are dogs that even the "choicest" specimens within the breed can and DO carry the specific genes for. 
I do have an appreciation for breed standard. Once you change the build of a dane it no longer looks like a dane. It's a silly comparison, really. Why should these colors be ignored? Why should they be shunned? When they are every bit as good as the others... just because someone way back when decided they were unacceptable? Well I disagree with that someone. 
How mug do you know about the color families within the Great Dane breed and the "rules" therein? How many breeders have you discussed it with? 

I must say that your experience with show breeders and mine while having similarities are quite opposite.
In my experience with show breeders in regards to Pembroke Welsh Corgis, Boxers, and Great Danes, is that they are very dedicated. They research, research, research. They have beautiful dogs. They study pedigrees. 
BUT... they are dedicated to titles, NOT the dogs. They research judges that give titles to dogs similar to theirs so their flawed bitch or stud can scam away a CH.(after all, the title is all that matters!) They mutilated and deformed their dogs to achieve optimum looks through ear cropping and nose tattoos, and tail breaking. They study pedigrees of inbred animals looking for relatives with desirable traits without concern for the defective puppies they will produce, then drown in hopes of getting that one perfect dog. They care about health so long as it does not interfere with their titles. That Ch dog with deplorable heart score? Bred anyway!

I think most show breeders do in fact start for the love of their breed but that is soon lost in the scramble for titles and shows. 

Lastly, what the hell do a bunch of gorgeous dogs running about mean if they are all in the show ring and not in the living rooms of families who adore them? I will never crop a dog's ears, or tattoo their nose. I will never break their tails so they lay "correctly" or rip my dog's fur out by the root. Call me crazy, but I want to produce dogs that are naturally beautiful, with correct form, healthy and with sound temperament to be enjoyed by your typical dog-loving family.


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> You see, these off colors are dogs that even the "choicest" specimens within the breed can and DO carry the specific genes for.
> I do have an appreciation for breed standard. Once you change the build of a dane it no longer looks like a dane. It's a silly comparison, really. Why should these colors be ignored? Why should they be shunned? When they are every bit as good as the others... just because someone way back when decided they were unacceptable? Well I disagree with that someone.
> How mug do you know about the color families within the Great Dane breed and the "rules" therein? How many breeders have you discussed it with?
> 
> I must say that your experience with show breeders and mine while having similarities are quite opposite.
> In my experience with show breeders in regards to Pembroke Welsh Corgis, Boxers, and Great Danes, is that they are very dedicated. They research, research, research. They have beautiful dogs. They study pedigrees.
> BUT... they are dedicated to titles, NOT the dogs. They research judges that give titles to dogs similar to theirs so their flawed bitch or stud can scam away a CH.(after all, the title is all that matters!) They mutilated and deformed their dogs to achieve optimum looks through ear cropping and nose tattoos, and tail breaking. They study pedigrees of inbred animals looking for relatives with desirable traits without concern for the defective puppies they will produce, then drown in hopes of getting that one perfect dog. They care about health so long as it does not interfere with their titles. That Ch dog with deplorable heart score? Bred anyway!
> 
> I think most show breeders do in fact start for the love of their breed but that is soon lost in the scramble for titles and shows.
> 
> Lastly, what the hell do a bunch of gorgeous dogs running about mean if they are all in the show ring and not in the living rooms of families who adore them? I will never crop a dog's ears, or tattoo their nose. I will never break their tails so they lay "correctly" or rip my dog's fur out by the root. Call me crazy, but I want to produce dogs that are naturally beautiful, with correct form, healthy and with sound temperament to be enjoyed by your typical dog-loving family.


I don't know anything about the great dane standard. My point is that physical and conformational standards of a breed, temperamental standards of a breed and color standards are set for a reason. It is not one person's responsibility to decide to change that. A responsible breeder breeds to the standard. 

There is no reason a show dog can't be a family pet as well. Just like an agility dog or an obedience dog is first and foremost a pet. Most people that I know that show their dogs make it very clear that their dog is a PET first. I've been spending hours researching show breeders where I will get my healthy, conformationally correct dog who will I will show and title to prove that he adheres to the standard. He'll sure as hell be my pet. :wink: Then, IF he finishes his title, AND passes health tests AND has a great temperament, I'll consider offering him for stud. 

You can easily be someone who doesn't get lost in the scramble for titles. Prove your dog. If you can't? Perhaps he shouldn't be bred.


----------



## Herzo

I will add that I think on the first page Natalie said something about standards for different color. I have a dog book that lists different standards ( I can't remember the dif now) I know they have like three pages and all other dogs have one. I don't see why the standard would need to be different, why would the standard not be the same for all colors? All colors are ok with Gray Hounds and the standards are the same. Also if they accepted all colors in Danes, as long as they meet all other requirements, maybe that would stop a little of the just breeding for a color just because you can get more money for it.

I know of a women that breeds for Black and white Basset hounds. She also has some that come out Blue which is blue for the Black.But I think some turn Black when older. Now I would never buy from her because I don't like the quality of her dogs and I don't think she is what I consider an ethical breeder. But I will say that the color it self I like. I would love to have one that color. The Basset standard says "Any recognized hound color is acceptable and the distribution of color and markings is of no importance" I think maybe the Blue has some heath issues but I don't know that much about it. I guess I can't say if they are looked down on as I have not looked into it that good. But if they were like you said good temperament,health and fit the conformation standard whats wrong with it.

I know they change standards maybe no all the time but I'm sure they have so why not color in Danes and other breeds. In Europe they are fighting now to change standard in body. Not sure I like that .


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> I don't know anything about the great dane standard.


Oh, then you must be unaware that there was a time these colors were entirely acceptable. And unaware of the fact that two correctly marked Ch dogs can and DO produce these colored dogs. Perhaps you're also unaware of the fact that most of the top show breeders themselves are fancies of these colored danes... but won't intentionally produce them even though they are healthy, perfect dogs. 
First and foremost you must be unaware of the rules within the color families and how that limits the gene pool. Do you even know how these colors are produced? The families have already been explained in this thread. Any breed is limited in their show gene pool, but in danes that pool is even further segregated and divided. This can be incredibly detrimental to the breed. I love this breed and REFUSE to take part in such a harmful practice. These off colors are simply produced by crossing the color families. Breeding a harl to a brindle. A fawn to a merle. You do NOT have to start with an off color. So, let me ask, because I've considered it: if I showed my brindle male who ENTIRELY adheres to the standard, color included. And then I show a harl female, who also ENTIRELY adhered to standard... and then bred them (of course assuming they complimented eachother. And had suitable temperaments) and their offspring were a rainbow litter of mismarks... HOW can you think they are inferior pups? I am not "seeking out" mismarked dogs.

Brownie, I suppose you'd much rather buy from a breeder who sticks to the color families, your typical harl x harl (same as double merle) breeder churning out deaf pups left and right while producing correctly marked harl because THAT breeding is entirely accepted within the breed.


----------



## danecolor

for those interested in the process that changed the great dane color standard from a veritable rainbow to the six colors (restricted into three color families) that we see today, the sections labeled “color” and “the color code of ethics” at this link may be of interest: Danes - The "Old Greats" - Waggin' Tails Miniature Dachshunds

for those who find it hard to understand why breeding for disallowed colors in the great dane is any different from deviating from the breed standard in other ways (such as breeding for a different tail set or pointier face), consider this: danes are not a breed like Dalmatians in which a certain color is intrinsic to the breed's identity. a dog who was not white with small round spots would no longer look much like a Dalmatian, but this is not so in great danes.

breeders who breed exactly according to the color standard still routinely produce “mismark” great danes and always will. in the case of the harlequin family of dogs, for example, disallowed colors will be produced in virtually every litter.

great danes come in over a hundred colors naturally, so a dog that is a disallowed color does not look any less like a great dane. this would not be true of a great dane with a pointy face, for example. the “off-colored” dog just happens to fall under the arbitrary category of “unbreedable” colors.

the current color code restricts the number of potential suitable mates so much that many harlequin breeders have said they are forced to breed harlequin to harlequin (resulting in defective puppies) because there are simply not enough qualified mantle dogs in their color family to breed to.

to me it makes perfect sense. if narrow color families lead to breedings that produce disabled puppies, then would the logical solution not be to breed across color family boundaries and increase the number of suitable mates possible for each dog?

allowing cross-color matings (breeding together dogs from different color families) in a breeding program is not the same as picking and choosing parts of the standard to adhere to. it is disregarding the color code (which is a separate entity from the standard) in pursuit of improving health and diversity. 

yes, unshowable colors will ultimately result from cross color mating. but esteemed “show breeders” are known to use the occasional miscolored dog in their breeding program when that dog has something special to offer. cross-color breeding is becoming less and less taboo (though slowly), and if it betters the breed, then i see absolutely no problem with it.


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> Oh, then you must be unaware that there was a time these colors were entirely acceptable. And unaware of the fact that two correctly marked Ch dogs can and DO produce these colored dogs. Perhaps you're also unaware of the fact that most of the top show breeders themselves are fancies of these colored danes... but won't intentionally produce them even though they are healthy, perfect dogs.
> First and foremost you must be unaware of the rules within the color families and how that limits the gene pool. Do you even know how these colors are produced? The families have already been explained in this thread. Any breed is limited in their show gene pool, but in danes that pool is even further segregated and divided. This can be incredibly detrimental to the breed. I love this breed and REFUSE to take part in such a harmful practice. These off colors are simply produced by crossing the color families. Breeding a harl to a brindle. A fawn to a merle. You do NOT have to start with an off color. So, let me ask, because I've considered it: if I showed my brindle male who ENTIRELY adheres to the standard, color included. And then I show a harl female, who also ENTIRELY adhered to standard... and then bred them (of course assuming they complimented eachother. And had suitable temperaments) and their offspring were a rainbow litter of mismarks... HOW can you think they are inferior pups? I am not "seeking out" mismarked dogs.
> 
> Brownie, I suppose you'd much rather buy from a breeder who sticks to the color families, your typical harl x harl (same as double merle) breeder churning out deaf pups left and right while producing correctly marked harl because THAT breeding is entirely accepted within the breed.


I hope you're not taking it personally, because it sounds as though you might be. 

Of course you are right, I have absolutely no knowledge about Great Danes because I have never owned one and never will. But this doesn't change the fact that I do not agree with breeding against the breed standard, color included. I don't believe that someone is doing a service to the breed by choosing to breed against the standard. 

Since I don't know much about Danes, I will talk breeds in general. I would choose to have a puppy produced from a breeding that did not risk churning out any issues. If harl x harl causes deafness, then I'd steer clear. But I take it there are other acceptable color crosses that do not cause issues. Why not stick with these?

Mismarked poodles occur naturally in breedings. These poodles are not shown because they disqualify. This is perfectly acceptable and these dogs go to pet homes.

Now, if they were allowed, that would be fabulous and even better. But I am not necessarily someone to support knowingly breeding against the standard.


----------



## BrownieM

Also, a great dane, like most breeds, doesn't occur naturally. ALL of the parameters set to create the standard are man-made, as is the breed. Color is as significant and artificial as physical characteristics, hence why I could compare a pointy nose to color. What makes it okay to pick and choose which standards you choose to abide by?

I am just thinking out loud and even debating with myself here. I don't mean for anything to be personal. :smile:


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> I hope you're not taking it personally, because it sounds as though you might be.
> 
> Of course you are right, I have absolutely no knowledge about Great Danes because I have never owned one and never will. But this doesn't change the fact that I do not agree with breeding against the breed standard, color included. I don't believe that someone is doing a service to the breed by choosing to breed against the standard.
> 
> Since I don't know much about Danes, I will talk breeds in general. I would choose to have a puppy produced from a breeding that did not risk churning out any issues. If harl x harl causes deafness, then I'd steer clear. But I take it there are other acceptable color crosses that do not cause issues. Why not stick with these?
> 
> Mismarked poodles occur naturally in breedings. These poodles are not shown because they disqualify. This is perfectly acceptable and these dogs go to pet homes.


What I don't think you're understanding is how sticking to the color standard can ultimately be damaging to my breed. Just as correctly marked danes can produce mismarks, mismarks can produce correctly marked danes. 
To stay within the color families, and not produce defective pups, might as well swipe the harl family out of the mix, too! 
Genetic diversity is not a bad thing. 
I guess. You could say I take it somewhat personal, you simply can't help it when these dogs are one of my biggest passions. It just irks me, because to understand my point, you have to understand DANES particularly. Which you don't.


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> Also, a great dane, like most breeds, doesn't occur naturally. ALL of the parameters set to create the standard are man-made, as is the breed. Color is as significant and artificial as physical


And web the breed was created, all colors were accepted. 
Again. You'd have to understand the breed to see the flaws in the "rules"


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> So, let me ask, because I've considered it: if I showed my brindle male who ENTIRELY adheres to the standard, color included. And then I show a harl female, who also ENTIRELY adhered to standard... and then bred them (of course assuming they complimented eachother. And had suitable temperaments) and their offspring were a rainbow litter of mismarks... HOW can you think they are inferior pups? I am not "seeking out" mismarked dogs.


Well, I would assume you would sell the mismarked dogs as pets, right? And the ones with correct color could be titled and used in a breeding program.


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> It just irks me, because to understand my point, you have to understand DANES particularly. Which you don't.


Okay, fair enough. :smile:


----------



## DaneMama

BrownieM said:


> Well, I would assume you would sell the mismarked dogs as pets, right? And the ones with correct color could be titled and used in a breeding program.


Not necessarily. Our focus is not on the show ring. It would be great to have the ones that are show marked to be shown, but it's not a goal of ours. 

We would pick the best overall representative puppies as our future breeding dogs regardless of their color. Progressively working toward producing the best representatives regardless of their coat color or pattern. 

What you will never agree with either of us on is the simple fact that we don't revolve our breeding program around the show ring or adhering to every aspect of the color code of ethics in the Great Dane. It is what it is and I know you're not the only one who feels this way. Which is fine, I respect that.


----------



## BrownieM

DaneMama said:


> Not necessarily. Our focus is not on the show ring. It would be great to have the ones that are show marked to be shown, but it's not a goal of ours.
> 
> We would pick the best overall representative puppies as our future breeding dogs regardless of their color. Progressively working toward producing the best representatives regardless of their coat color or pattern.
> 
> What you will never agree with either of us on is the simple fact that we don't revolve our breeding program around the show ring or adhering to every aspect of the color code of ethics in the Great Dane. It is what it is and I know you're not the only one who feels this way. Which is fine, I respect that.


I do see where you are coming from and I honestly mean for this to be a friendly discussion, since I obviously have nothing invested in the breed. :smile: I do respect the passion that you both have for improving the breed, I just have a different set of beliefs.


----------



## DaneMama

I think if you knew how inbred and devastatingly narrow the gene pool is with Danes you'd better understand why diversity is one of our main goals. If we can produce the most stunning example of a Dane without the use of inbreeding (unlike most show breeders) then our program will be a success. It'll be fantastic if some of our pups win CH titles in the show ring, it'll further indicate that what our goals happen to be are working. But to get the diversity we want we have to "break" the color code of ethics and breed outside the families.


----------



## SpooOwner

I keep thinking about the Newfie breeder, whose dogs live 17 yrs, and wonder how well his dogs match to the breed standard. I wonder if there are any significant deviations from conformation that correlate to longevity. If so, I think it's more evidence that breed standards need to be reformed.

As for the politics of color, I have a parti poodle and that says enough about where I stand. It's not so much that I support breeding against standard, so much as I support standards that make sense and have happy, healthy, long-lived dogs as their goal. The current standards do not.


----------



## BrownieM

SpooOwner said:


> It's not so much that I support breeding against standard, so much as I support standards that make sense and have happy, healthy, long-lived dogs as their goal. The current standards do not.


This is true, and the poodle breed itself is highly inbred, which is why I probably can relate to the issues of the Great Dane Breed, although I really don't know how the issues would compare. Anyway, I *still* don't agree with breeding against the standard, even though poodles have a great lack of diversity in the bloodlines.


----------



## magicre

i'll return this to the dane colour discussion in a moment....

what about black pugs...i never seen them shown...it's always fawn...are black pugs even accepted by the akc? and is it because they are accidents of birth? they don't breed true....?


----------



## DaneMama

BrownieM said:


> This is true, and the poodle breed itself is highly inbred, which is why I probably can relate to the issues of the Great Dane Breed, although I really don't know how the issues would compare. Anyway, I *still* don't agree with breeding against the standard, even though poodles have a great lack of diversity in the bloodlines.


What I don't understand is why people place so much merit and faith in something that promotes inbreeding and narrowing of the gene pool. If breeding 100% within the standard means that we have to choose dogs that are all related, further depleting the diversity...then I will do my best to breed as much within the standard but enough outside of it to promote overall better health and longevity. 

Re- I know nothing of pugs color codes or standards. Maybe someone will chime in who does know!


----------



## magicre

they only come in two colours....silver is not really a colour nor is white, i think....black is something that is an anomaly at birth....put two black pugs together and you may not come up with black pugs....i suppose that is the reason they are not acceptable....they are also smaller, i believe....and, of course, cuter LOL


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> I do see where you are coming from and I honestly mean for this to be a friendly discussion, since I obviously have nothing invested in the breed. :smile:


 I wanted to clarify: I'm certainly not upset nor harbor hard feelings. :smile: 
Sure it's a topic that strikes close to home obviously, BUT at the same time, going into this, we did so KNOWING that there would be PLENTY of people who disagreed, and I'm sure there will be those who very angrily disagree. I'm ok with that. In the end of the day, we're still producing very HEALTHY animals.



BrownieM said:


> This is true, and the poodle breed itself is highly inbred, which is why I probably can relate to the issues of the Great Dane Breed, although I really don't know how the issues would compare.


I think that all gene pools are very limited when it comes to showing and breeding stock. What's different with Danes is this already limited pool to pick from is even FURTHER broken down into sub categories (color families) making it that much more narrow. 




BrownieM said:


> Anyway, I *still* don't agree with breeding against the standard, even though poodles have a great lack of diversity in the bloodlines.


Noted, AND respected! :thumb:
*I don't agree with breeding practices that ultimately hurt a breed more than preserve their longevity. I feel the limiting danes to the color families does this, and bringing down the barriers is one way we can preserve this breed and their health.* That's where we're coming from. :biggrin1:


ETA: Re- I have NO idea about Pugs. I only know Pemmies, boxers, and Danes. Anything else and I'm useless! Hopefully someone who knows their stuff will chime in.


----------



## danecolor

magicre said:


> i'll return this to the dane colour discussion in a moment....
> 
> what about black pugs...i never seen them shown...it's always fawn...are black pugs even accepted by the akc? and is it because they are accidents of birth? they don't breed true....?


just like in great danes, the fawn coloration is recessive to black in pugs. they aren't accidents of birth, or any different than fawn pugs at all other than fur color. black is accepted by the AKC. i would venture a guess that they may just be less popular than fawns in the ring.


----------



## BrownieM

DaneMama said:


> What I don't understand is why people place so much merit and faith in something that promotes inbreeding and narrowing of the gene pool. If breeding 100% within the standard means that we have to choose dogs that are all related, further depleting the diversity...then I will do my best to breed as much within the standard but enough outside of it to promote overall better health and longevity.
> 
> Re- I know nothing of pugs color codes or standards. Maybe someone will chime in who does know!


I don't know about Danes, but with Poodles you can most definitely breed within the standard without breeding closely related dogs. Not every dog that fits the breed standard has a high COI.


----------



## DaneMama

You can still breed within the color families and have unrelated dogs with decent diversity. BUT when you're selective on who to breed to it definitely puts limits on diversity. And one has to be restrictive when selecting breeding dogs based on conformation and temperament that compliments one another. 

But breeding outside the color code even further diversifies genetics. Which is a good thing in my opinion.


----------



## danecolor

BrownieM said:


> Also, a great dane, like most breeds, doesn't occur naturally. ALL of the parameters set to create the standard are man-made, as is the breed. Color is as significant and artificial as physical characteristics, hence why I could compare a pointy nose to color. What makes it okay to pick and choose which standards you choose to abide by?
> 
> I am just thinking out loud and even debating with myself here. I don't mean for anything to be personal. :smile:


when i refer to colors as "naturally occurring" i mean that they are produced in the breed even when breeders follow the color code of ethics exactly. in other words, breeders do not have to _try_ to produce mismark colors for them to be produced. they will always appear regardless of whether they are bred for or not.


----------



## DaneMama

danecolor said:


> when i refer to colors as "naturally occurring" i mean that they are produced in the breed even when breeders follow the color code of ethics exactly. in other words, breeders do not have to _try_ to produce mismark colors for them to be produced. they will always appear regardless of whether they are bred for or not.


This is very true, but I think the extent to which it is done can vary greatly. So far, Linsey and I have a whole array of colors that could possibly be mixed depending on how everyone matures. Essentially every cross we do will be outside the standard. We are purposely breeding non standard colors unlike the breeders who stick to the standard who still end up with mismarks. In all honesty we will possibly end up with just as many properly marked dogs and mismarked dogs as a standard litter. From what Ive seen thus far from looking at litter after litter on the Internet.


----------



## danecolor

DaneMama said:


> This is very true, but I think the extent to which it is done can vary greatly. So far, Linsey and I have a whole array of colors that could possibly be mixed depending on how everyone matures. Essentially every cross we do will be outside the standard. We are purposely breeding non standard colors unlike the breeders who stick to the standard who still end up with mismarks. In all honesty we will possibly end up with just as many properly marked dogs and mismarked dogs as a standard litter. From what Ive seen thus far from looking at litter after litter on the Internet.


i'm sure that more mismarks will be produced when mismarks are used routinely. as long as they are all quality dogs, i have no problem with this kind of breeding practice. honestly, i would venture a guess that routinely using healthy, unrelated dogs will result in healthier offspring and stronger immune systems in the long run.

my point is that traditional breeders occasionally practice cross-color breeding and/or the incorporation of quality mismarks in order to improve their program, so i do not see what you plan to do as being much different. the only difference is that you will be instituting the same practices more frequently. i truly wish you all the best in your venture. i would love to see the unaccepted colors being incorporated ethically into a breeding program.

which of your Danes do you plan to use in your program (provided everything goes according to plan?


----------



## CorgiPaws

danecolor said:


> i'm sure that more mismarks will be produced when mismarks are used routinely. as long as they are all quality dogs, i have no problem with this kind of breeding practice. honestly, i would venture a guess that routinely using healthy, unrelated dogs will result in healthier offspring and stronger immune systems in the long run.
> 
> my point is that traditional breeders occasionally practice cross-color breeding and/or the incorporation of quality mismarks in order to improve their program, so i do not see what you plan to do as being much different. the only difference is that you will be instituting the same practices more frequently. i truly wish you all the best in your venture. i would love to see the unaccepted colors being incorporated ethically into a breeding program.
> 
> which of your Danes do you plan to use in your program (provided everything goes according to plan?


The girls are all possible contenders, but a lot had to happen for anything to be set in stone, and of course complimentary males would have to be located.


----------



## DaneMama

danecolor said:


> which of your Danes do you plan to use in your program (provided everything goes according to plan?


Zuri, who is 10 months old currently. Brindlequin girl. She doesn't have the strongest head, I'd personally like to see a bit more jowl and overall substance but for an American bred Dane I think she is nicely proportioned. Her ear set isn't fantastic LOL. She turns out a bit in the front sometimes also, but not all the time. I don't know if this is a problem....I know that turning out in the show ring is a fault, but I don't know if its a DQ'ing fault. I don't think it is. Zuri has a great topline. 



















Freya, who is just over 1 year currently. Piebald female. She has a very nice head and ear set. She has a bit more jowl and substance because she is out of half American lines and half European lines. Overall, she has better body conformation compared to Zuri except that she doesn't have quite as good of a topline, she has a slight roach to her back (I hope she grows out of it OR its just cuz she is a string bean). I have yet to get a good "stack" from her since she came to us not long ago. 










I don't have a good updated body shot of her...maybe I can get a few this weekend. 

Zailey, 9.5 month old merle female (who is owned by Linsey) and of which I don't have many pictures of....here's Zuri and Zailey pictured side by side around 5-6 months of age. From what I could see on my last visit with Zailey, I couldn't see any major faults with her conformation. Of course she is still young and I will have plenty of opportunity to take photos in just over a month LOL!


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaneMama said:


> Zuri, who is 10 months old currently. Brindlequin girl:


Natalie, I don't want to alarm you, but your little girl is growing up!
Zailey will be 10 months old on the 16th... which means Zuri is nearly 11 months. 
LOL!

ETA: I can't wait to meet freya, and I love her head.


----------



## DaneMama

PuppyPaws said:


> Natalie, I don't want to alarm you, but your little girl is growing up!
> Zailey will be 10 months old on the 16th... which means Zuri is nearly 11 months.
> LOL!
> 
> ETA: I can't wait to meet freya, and I love her head.


Zuri wont be 11 months until the 20th!!! I'm hanging onto her youth as much as I can LOL

I will try and take more photos of her this weekend.


----------



## CorgiPaws

DaneMama said:


> Zuri wont be 11 months until the 20th!!! I'm hanging onto her youth as much as I can LOL
> 
> I will try and take more photos of her this weekend.


Remember when we were merely anticipating their arrivals at home? 
Now they're becoming dignified ladies. Time sure does fly. And Braxton will be a big boy before we know it!


----------



## rannmiller

I love this thread! I has been so educational for me to learn just how the different crosses produce different colors and the history of the AKC trying to destroy the breed like they always do! Danecolor, you are a very valuable and informative new member on this forum, thank you for joining us!


----------



## BrownieM

rannmiller said:


> I love this thread! I has been so educational for me to learn just how the different crosses produce different colors and the history of the AKC trying to destroy the breed like they always do! Danecolor, you are a very valuable and informative new member on this forum, thank you for joining us!


I have a question though, is it really AKC or is it the parent clubs? Since the parent clubs set the breed standard, I would blame them instead of AKC, right?


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> I have a question though, is it really AKC or is it the parent clubs? Since the parent clubs set the breed standard, I would blame them instead of AKC, right?


I personally blame BOTH parties. 
The parent clubs for setting the standard thus limiting the gene pool... and the AKC for giving titles to such inbred dogs. The AKC COULD require applicable health testing to be completed prior to handing out a Ch. But they don't.


----------



## BrownieM

I think I personally blame parent clubs more. If the parent club decided to change the rules, AKC would surely follow! 

And as far as AKC requiring testing for a CH. title, well, I believe it is the job of owners, breeders, etc. to research health testing on their own. To be informed buyers and breeders. A CH. title only means (or I should say ideally means) that a dog is conformationally correct. It doesn't mean they are healthy. 

Or...they could devise an additional title, maybe. Like something else to add on for being a health tested Ch.


----------



## rannmiller

Ok fine, I blame the AKC and the parent clubs. Fair enough :smile:

I just really think that while conformation is definitely important structurally (not color-wise), health and temperament should also be foremost in the criteria for breeding dogs. If healthy dogs are produced that are an "off" color, but are otherwise healthy, happy, functioning dogs, and the gene pool is expanded a little bit more, what is the harm?


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> I think I personally blame parent clubs more. If the parent club decided to change the rules, AKC would surely follow!
> 
> And as far as AKC requiring testing for a CH. title, well, I believe it is the job of owners, breeders, etc. to research health testing on their own. To be informed buyers and breeders. A CH. title only means (or I should say ideally means) that a dog is conformationally correct. It doesn't mean they are healthy.
> 
> Or...they could devise an additional title, maybe. Like something else to add on for being a health tested Ch.


You're entirely right.

It IS the parent clubs to blame. 

And the AKC is entirely useless. :biggrin:


----------



## rannmiller

BrownieM said:


> And as far as AKC requiring testing for a CH. title, well, I believe it is the job of owners, breeders, etc. to research health testing on their own. To be informed buyers and breeders. A CH. title only means (or I should say ideally means) that a dog is conformationally correct. It doesn't mean they are healthy.


Exactly! A CH title means nothing about the actual quality of the dog except that it looks good. And as mama always told me "Never judge a book by its cover" and "Looks aren't everything." So why are people so hung up on the AKC standards being some magical end-all, be-all to proper breeding ethics? I think it is better to breed for a dog that structurally fits the standard so that it still maintains the basic look of the breed, while also striving to _improve_ (not just maintain) the breed by adding greater genetic diversity so as to improve the health and temperament of its specimens. NOT just to make it look like it's supposed to!

And I believe that if a certain Dane breeder or two wanted to "prove" their "off color" Danes were worthy of breeding, then health and temperament tests as well as a good understanding of the structural [conformational] integrity of the breed would be the most important qualities needed for their goal of increasing genetic diversity and creating the healthiest puppies possible regardless of color or pageantry status.


----------



## CorgiPaws

What it really comes down to, for me, is that I will not participate in any practices that I feel are in the long run damaging to the health and longevity of my breed, EVEN if those practices are what the standard calls for in any way, shape, or form. 



That's the beauty of having breeders to choose from. There will be some you agree with, and some you don't. Some you want to pat on the back, and some you want to punch in the face. I may not be your ideal breeder, but trust me, there are a LOT of fanciers of these "mismarked" Danes that will sure like having a breeder who gives a damn about producing healthy dogs to go to.


----------



## bernadettelevis

Ithink one of the worst examples are the GSDs. If you go to a show over here, there are still GSDs who can hardly walk due to their hips and backs, however they win titles and of course are bred.... very sad!!
Health and temperament should be most important! 

Natalie, will Akasha (?) also be included in the breeding project? I love her


----------



## jdatwood

bernadettelevis said:


> Ithink one of the worst examples are the GSDs. If you go to a show over here, there are still GSDs who can hardly walk due to their hips and backs, however they win titles and of course are bred.... very sad!!
> Health and temperament should be most important!
> 
> Natalie, will Akasha (?) also be included in the breeding project? I love her


Oh man, show breeding has DESTROYED the GSD. It's really sad to see.

Unfortunately Akasha is already spayed :Cry: I  her too. She's my baby


----------



## meggels

BrownieM said:


> Regarding color, I have been thinking about this since yesterday, and as much as I'd like to say that I would support a breeder who bred off-color dogs and met all other requirements of a responsible breeder, I personally would never buy a puppy from a breeder like this. At least in the breed I prefer. I think that the breed standard is there for a reason. Sure, there may be colors that are not allowed, and there may be no *health* reason why these colors are disqualified, but there have to be rules and parameters. This is how you define a breed: with rules and parameters. If white poodles with brown points were allowed (they're not. They must have black points) then this would blur the lines that define the breed.
> 
> I think that until the parent club decides to change the color regulations, I will stick to supporting breeders who breed to the standard.
> 
> I also prefer to stick with show breeders. Because in *my* experience, these are the breeders who care most about the breed, know the most about the breed, who do the most extensive health testing, adhere to the standard, raise puppies in their home, very _few_ litters a year and spend copious hours researching pedigrees to make the best match between a bitch and dog. These are the breeders who actually care if there is a health issue, who produce the most conformationally, temperamentally sound and healthy dogs. Yes, there are backward show breeders, but showing is part of the package for me. As is a breeder who abides to the breed standard, including color.
> 
> This is just me, though. I think that color is part of that package.
> 
> In my mind, a breeder who is knowingly breeding against the standard, including color, does not meet my requirements for a breeder.


You said what I feel perfectly.


----------



## DaneMama

And unfortunately so is Bailey. Who I think has the best conformation out of all the Danes we have put together. I bred her once about three years ago. She had 11 gorgeous puppies who I've watched grow up to fine dogs. But I spayed her so we could start fostering for the Dane rescue. We fostered 6 Danes and quit when we realized it was too hard on our own dogs. I regret spaying Bailey every single day. She would most definitely made a wonderful foundation foe our program. 

One of her pups is still intact that could be used for another addition the only issue is he's a harlequin. For our breeding program we have decided to keep all females Merle of some kind and all males a solid color so that we don't run the risk of producing double merles. And since harlequins are genetically merles that harl male wouldn't be used with any of our current girls....just more thought to the future!


----------



## magicre

danecolor said:


> just like in great danes, the fawn coloration is recessive to black in pugs. they aren't accidents of birth, or any different than fawn pugs at all other than fur color. black is accepted by the AKC. i would venture a guess that they may just be less popular than fawns in the ring.


you're right. i read that last night....but black doesn't breed true....isn't that a requirement...that you can breed the colour?

well, bah to the akc.....black pugs are adorable....LOL


----------



## BrownieM

rannmiller said:


> Exactly! A CH title means nothing about the actual quality of the dog except that it looks good. And as mama always told me "Never judge a book by its cover" and "Looks aren't everything." So why are people so hung up on the AKC standards being some magical end-all, be-all to proper breeding ethics? I think it is better to breed for a dog that structurally fits the standard so that it still maintains the basic look of the breed, while also striving to _improve_ (not just maintain) the breed by adding greater genetic diversity so as to improve the health and temperament of its specimens. NOT just to make it look like it's supposed to!
> 
> And I believe that if a certain Dane breeder or two wanted to "prove" their "off color" Danes were worthy of breeding, then health and temperament tests as well as a good understanding of the structural [conformational] integrity of the breed would be the most important qualities needed for their goal of increasing genetic diversity and creating the healthiest puppies possible regardless of color or pageantry status.


I don't think anyone ever said that AKC CH. title is the end-all be-all of ethical breeding. I personally have stated over and over again, and I believe many others have too, that attaining a Ch. title is *one piece of the puzzle*. Proper conformation is essential in a dog that will be bred. A Ch. title is how you prove to yourself and others that your dog is conformationally correct. If your dog cannot finish because of conformational shortcomings, this will affect whether or not you breed your dog. If your dog takes a long time to finish or you must cheat to finish your dog, this too *should* affect your decision to breed that dog.

I've also said this a million times, but I will reiterate that I believe that health testing is a *duh*. The most basic and elementary thing that any responsible breeder will do is health test. If the dog isn't healthy, don't breed it. But, just because the dog is healthy *does not mean it should be bred.* It needs to have a good temperament (as defined by the breed standard) and good conformation (as defined by the breed standard.)

As far as color, well I was letting it rest, but since you are addressing me I will respond. I do not believe a good breeder will breed outside the breed standard. A good breeder will work within the breed standard to increase genetic diversity.

Why not show and title the dogs that are proper color? Are off-color dogs allowed in UKC? Why not show them there to at least get UKC titles? To prove something, other than *said breeder* thinks the dog has proper conformation.

A title means something, just as health testing does. Health testing does not guarantee that your dog is free of disease. An AKC Ch. title does not prove that your dog has perfect conformation. However, health testing proves that your dog is free of certain genetic illnesses and, at the current moment, does not have _______ health problem. A Ch. title proves that a judge(s) has determined your dog to have proper conformation for said breed. 

It is then up to the breeder to determine if their health tested, conformationally and temperamentally sound dog should be bred. If so, it is then the buyer's responsibility to not take a Ch. title to mean they can blindly purchase a puppy. The buyer should go over the conformation of bitch, and if possible, sire, should interact with puppies and decide if they are a good match.

I think everyone is well aware that breeding is not as simple as getting a Ch. title and BAM. No, it is much more complex, with many essential pieces.


----------



## meggels

I agree Brownie. I think that showing and getting a champion title on a dog is one small piece as well. Besides that, I want to see health testing, meet the parents and see their temperaments, etc. 

While I agree that health and temperament are important facts, I personally think all three factors are EQUAL, otherwise you start running into people that are BYB'ing their dogs because they are "sweet" but letting conformation flaws go out the window. 

While there are some show breeders who are doing things @ss backwards, after spending ten months deeply involved in the show world of frenchies, I really think getting a puppy from a breeder who shows, networks, and is part of a community within a breed is very important. I want to get my dog from someone who is well respected among their peers. You can be a breeder of integrity and still be heavily involved in AKC showing, but you can stick with your values and morals and do things your way as well, it doesn't have to be black and white of either you show your dog or you don't and poopoo the AKC world as a whole. 


I dunno, I just really love dog showing, and I think the majority of the people I met while living with a frenchie breeder/exhibitor shared her values, rather than doing things in a poor manner. I'd like to see a dog compete and at least get some points, show that it's conformation is being judged, see a breeder networking with other breeders and using that to evaluate their dogs with a critical eye, rather than being stuck with kennel blindness. I think it's an important aspect of breeding, is constantly learning, keeping your mind open to new things and meeting new dogs and judging your own against them. The frenchie breeder that I lived with would constantly compare various aspects of dogs we came across vs her dogs and tell me what she does and doesn't like about those dogs, or why she would breed one dog with one bitch to improve upon faults hopefully.


----------



## DaneMama

I think there's two sides of this here in this discussion. People who put a lot of merit in dog showing and those who dont. 

Is one way right or wrong? That depends on who's opinion you ask. That's the bottom line. I don't think either is wrong...just different and they can be equally as productive and rewarding.


----------



## luvMyBRT

Natalie and Linsey-
Are you guys going to study pedigrees? Look at your Dane's parents and grandparents and their health scores, temperaments, coloring, etc.? I am sure you guys are....just wanting to take part in the conversation. :smile: 

I know the breeder that we are getting our female BRT from studies pedigrees and tries to take everything into consideration (which is why she only has one litter a year at best).


----------



## Loki Love

Wow.. just catching up on this now!




DaneMama said:


> Mousse has a wonderful temperament. He's been with us for just over a week and is a total gentleman. He's still learning the ropes of our home, but a wonderful dog and your typical Dane personality.


So after a week we can determine his temperament is wonderful enough to breed. Interesting. What about the temperament of his parents? Grandparents? Great-grandparents? Can you go back at least 7 generations with him?



DaneMama said:


> Why is it a disservice? You cannot say that it is without an explanation of why...


It’s a disservice because you think you are above the standard. Period.



PuppyPaws said:


> My apologies for not mentioning temperament in this thread, I have mentioned it in many in the past, but this one being specifically about color, I stuck to color.


Fair enough – but you did mention health testing (which isn’t about the colour) so not sure why the snark on this? 



PuppyPaws said:


> I do in fact intend to work towards CGC titles for my dogs.


Before breeding them?



PuppyPaws said:


> I do not need anyone's "approval" of my opinion, therefore why put my effort into getting it?


Because the love of the breed would be worth it, wouldn’t it? If you love this breed as much as you claim you do – why wouldn’t you do everything in your power to have the standards changed? Seriously - I don't understand that.




PuppyPaws said:


> So, for fanciers of these "off color" danes, what for them, then? Should they never have the dog of their choice? Even if that color is perfectly healthy and naturally occurring in their preferred breed?
> Is a chocolate dane any less of a dane than the brindle? Any healthier? Any more long-lived? Any less capable of being a good family pet? The answers to all of them is NO. The ONLY thing an off color dane can not do that others can is show.


For off-colored danes – I recommend looking into rescues. There are LOTS of ‘breeders’ who are breeding these kinds of Danes and they do end up in rescues.




PuppyPaws said:


> So, let me ask, because I've considered it: if I showed my brindle male who ENTIRELY adheres to the standard, color included. And then I show a harl female, who also ENTIRELY adhered to standard... and then bred them (of course assuming they complimented eachother. And had suitable temperaments) and their offspring were a rainbow litter of mismarks... HOW can you think they are inferior pups? I am not "seeking out" mismarked dogs.


No one said they would be inferior – they would be wonderful pet companions.




DaneMama said:


> I think if you knew how inbred and devastatingly narrow the gene pool is with Danes you'd better understand why diversity is one of our main goals.


Can you provide reference for this? I hear you repeat this over and over.. but honestly, I’ve only ever heard it from a couple of people here on this forum. Where’s the proof in this? 



DaneMama said:


> What I don't understand is why people place so much merit and faith in something that promotes inbreeding and narrowing of the gene pool.


Again – where is the reference and documentation for this?


----------



## DaneMama

Look at pedigrees for most show danes and you'll see enough proof of inbreeding right there. In fact many show breeders say that its a good thing to see the same dog several times within a 6 generation pedigree. Inbreeding in itself narrows the gene pool. I don't agree with it now and I never will. Period. And I have yet to be given a logical and valid reason as to why it's a disservice to the breed. Until I get one or find one, I will stick to my beliefs. 

I never said "I'm above the standard" nor below it. I just dont care to follow the standard when it comes to coat color because I don't feel that it's important. I respect that you do feel it's important and I hope you'll respect my opinion on it. 

As far as Mousse's temperament, so far so good (same with all the girls- Freya is a little headstrong). He's not even old enough to breed yet to begin with so it's not like a week in and we are already hookin' him up with chicks! It'll be at least 9 months to a year. And yes, I'm spending a good deal of my time after work researching each and every dog in his pedigree, and that of the girls' pedigrees. It's actually making Jon a little upset when we are supposed to be having a movie night and instead I'm busy looking at Dane stuff. 

Our goal is to get each one CGC before breeding of course...what would be the point in waiting after them being bred?


----------



## Herzo

I should not have started this yet because I haven't had time to keep up.

Ok so I'm a little slow sometimes. It only took me half way through this to figure this out. I couldn't get exactly why you guys were saying that the gene pool was so small. You can only breed Danes to the color family right. Blacks to blues, harls to merels, and fawns to brindles. If this is right this is nuts. 

Also what is the color of Mousses parents and was he and accident?


----------



## 3Musketeers

Honestly I don't see the point of color standards. Certain colors/markings preferred over others is fine, but not allowing a mismarked/micolored dog to breed simply because it has an "unacceptable" v.s an undesirable color only further limits the gene pool.
The focus should redirect more towards health, temperament, and body structure. Especially structure/health in a dog like the GSD, since their being bred for looks has horribly deformed them, and only coming in 2-3 colors only makes it worse.
Maybe I'm just biased and like to see more colorful dogs.
An exception would be BRTs, because then their name wouldn't make sense! Lol.


----------



## DaneMama

He comes from two distinct color pure lines. His sire was from a color pure black/blue line and his dam was from a color pure fawn/brindle line. No, he wasnt an accident. Both of his parents are carriers of the recessive chocolate gene.


----------



## Herzo

So were there other chocolate pups in the litter? And is it also right about the color family breeding's? I just can't believe they would limit it like that, because if this is true it must be the only breed out there that does that. And I hope you guys can get that changed. It just seems so strange if you had a good black dane you shouldn't breed it to a good, say brindle dane.


----------



## DaneMama

Half the litter was chocolate. The other half were black. It was an intentional breeding with a surprising outcome. Chocolate puppies were not expected on bit since the chocolate gene is recessive. Both parents are carriers and were bred together unknowingly. His dam is a fawn with a black mask and his sire is a black.

Changing the standard is a very slow process. Europe is actually ahead of the game with changing the standard by allowing merles again. I think if anything will change it will be a long time from now.

The ironic thing is, crosses between blacks with brindles or fawns are somewhat common and not frowned upon in the show world. For some reason, this breeding cross is still okay, but if you breed say a harl/merle to a brindle or fawn...then you're crossing the line


----------



## Herzo

Thanks Natalie. I still am thinking this all began for no good reason and there nuts. The GDCA needs to think of the betterment of the breed and not worry so much about color except when it brings out the blind and deaf. And that goes for all breeds that do this witch I don't think there that many. I may be wrong on this not sure. I see why if it meant that it was because there is another breed in there as Savage Destiny said in the APBT, then I would understand, but to limit it to those color matings just because it may be an off color. Well I don't get it, I just don't get it.

There nuts I say.


----------



## DaneMama

I've been looking into how to change the standard and in regards to chocolates, requirement is for them to breed color pure for five generations in a row. Then it's put up for vote by the GDCA board to include them or not. If they do then chocolates would be allowed in the show ring.

And apparently there are several show breeders who are starting their own chocolate lines now so that when they do become included in the standard their kennel names will be the foundation. Which makes sense...people want to take credit for them being responsible for expanding the standard. Personally I think it's a shame these breeders are doing it in "secret" and not out in the open about it.


----------



## danecolor

DaneMama said:


> I've been looking into how to change the standard and in regards to chocolates, requirement is for them to breed color pure for five generations in a row. Then it's put up for vote by the GDCA board to include them or not. If they do then chocolates would be allowed in the show ring.
> 
> And apparently there are several show breeders who are starting their own chocolate lines now so that when they do become included in the standard their kennel names will be the foundation. Which makes sense...people want to take credit for them being responsible for expanding the standard. Personally I think it's a shame these breeders are doing it in "secret" and not out in the open about it.


that is very interesting. i was not aware that this was the only requirement or that breeders were actively pursuing this goal. i personally find it very heartening that there are more open-minded breeders out there in regards to color than there first appear to be. i would love to see chocolates become included in the breed standard. i feel that if this movement is a success then the door will be opened for the inclusion of other colors as well.

ETA: i wonder where dilute chocolates and chocolate-pigmented dogs in patterns other than solid (like merle, brindle, harl, etc.) fit in to all of this.


----------



## CorgiPaws

So, to change the standard... someone must first go against the standard for five generations, at least.

Eta: and for those 5 generations they get flamed and bashed and ridiculed, but if it works and the standard is changed, then they get congratulated!


----------



## Herzo

Yes and when there dead, people will look back at them and say, I wonder why they didn't do it sooner. Look at what a good thing for the bred it was. I wonder why we didn't think of the health before color?


----------



## KittyKat

Whew, 12 pages! I have to say, all this colour talk is nonsense because it really does limit the breed. Chocolate danes are gorgeous! Then again, I come from a world where dogs are every colour/pattern under the rainbow. The whippet standard is all about body structure - there is no colour standard. I like it this way. There are colours/patterns that are preferred because people like them more, and that's fine.... but if there was a chocolate/brown whippet, it would be just as much a whippet as any other. The only colour related thing that can disqualify a whippet is lack of pigment on their nose/eyes. 

Piper's breeder does show, but she only puts her dogs up at specialties (so it's 20 some-odd whippets competing for the title) because she said the same thing you guys did... "If they just wait long enough, or go to enough small shows - they'll get a title... even if their dog doesn't conform to the breed standard as much as they should". 

It's one thing if a colour is a genetic marker for some disease. It's another if it's banned because "so and so doesn't like that colour...".


----------

