Collie that won Westminster is son of double merle

[Dekka]

Originally Posted by OutlineACDs

It is not AKC's job to police anyone. They are a registry. As a puppy buyer you hold the power. If you don't support it, don't buy from that breeder. Asking the AKC to get involved is like having the government getting involved in our rights to birth control (which they're trying to do). It's none of their business how/why/when we breed our dogs.

Always, always support breeders who you believe in and who have the ethics and principles that you can agree on.

This always irritates me. They are obviously much much more than just a registry. Heck their mission statement makes it very clear they see themselves as much more than a registry.

AKC's Core Values:

* We love purebred dogs
* We are committed to advancing the sport of the purebred dog
* We are dedicated to maintaining the integrity of our Registry
* We protect the health and well-being of all dogs
* We cherish dogs as companions
* We are committed to the interests of dog owners
* We uphold high standards for the administration and operation of the AKC
* We recognize the critical importance of our clubs and volunteers

is very interesting, no? Not only in the 'more than just a registry' way but also in light of the acceptance of breeding practices that have an exceedingly high chance (almost a certainty) of producing puppies with serious health issues.

Heck their little slogan "We are more than champion dogs, we are the dog's champion" Heck by allowing merle/merle crossings (easily avoidable) to be registered they are hardly being 'the dog's champion' now are they?

[OutlineACDs]

Yeah, yeah, I get that. They promote the health and well-being of dogs by the research and education that they do, not by regulating who can breed what to what and when, how etc. They reward breeders who do health testing on their dogs etc. AKC isn't perfect, but as long as they let me do what I feel is necessary with my dogs then I'll register with them.

So, its not ok for two fully health tested merles to be bred but its ok for Jim and Bob down the street to breed their untested dogs? What if Jim and Bob don't know that both of their dogs have a thyroid problem? Still ok? I mean really.

You can bash AKC all you want, and thats fine. I bash them too on occasion. They do a lot of things that seem silly to me. As long as I retain my rights to breed and raise and sell my dogs the way I feel is right, I'm ok by that.

[Aleron]

Originally Posted by Kat09Tails

Personally I'm of the opinion there isn't really a good reason to produce a 1/4 chance that a puppy really should be euthanized within a litter. If someone produced dogs where one out of four would be born with crippling HD, a fatal heart defect, or a serious case of epilepsy people would be howling. Why would a blind/deaf collie ever be acceptable within a breed bred for herding? After all the well being of every dog within a pedigree should matter. Vanity - is the only reason to produce such an animal on purpose - and foolishness would be the only reason to retain one as breeding stock.

FWIW There were some influential workingAussies that resulted from merle x merle breedings.

If AKC banned merle x merle breeding, they'd have to remove Catahoulas from their FSS program. This article is interesting regarding merle in them: http://www.donabney.com/issue_merle.php

There are breeds where there is a high risk of hip dysplasia in every puppy. According to OFA, 66% of Pug xrays submitted were graded dysplastic and none were excellent. Nearly all Cavaliers have a genetic heart defect. These problems didn't occur due to "vanity" either. Generally such issues occur due to a limited gene pool or accidentally, unknowingly being "cemented" in early in the foundation of the breed prior to knowledge of such things.

FWIW I'm not saying I think it's a great idea to breed merle to merle in Collies or Shelties or breeds at a high risk for blind/deaf double merles. But this sort of thing has been done throughout the history of the breed and the only reason it's being discussed now by people who have no involvement or interest in the breed is due to an article written by someone who seems to think breeding any merle or any Collie for that matter is questionable ethics.

[~Jessie~]

Originally Posted by Saeleofu

That's YOUR choice, not the choice of everyone else. I would totally take being deaf blind over death ANY day. I know a lot of people that are deaf, blind, or BOTH. And they get along just fine. A dog should be able to get along ever better than a human, considering their main sense is SMELL. Smell to a dog is like sight to a human.

It's sad how someone can be so intolerable of defects.

Exactly! A dog's strongest sense is the sense of smell. Not to mention, dogs don't DWELL on things like that. A blind/deaf dog isn't going to sit around moping over not being able to use those senses- their other senses just get stronger to compensate.

I think the intentional breeding of merle x merle is horrible.

[SaraB]

One thing that I want to point out about the horribly disabled deaf and/or blind puppies is that they don't know life any different. They arn't getting made fun of by the other puppies, they arn't talking around the water cooler realizing that they are lacking in a major sense. So until we can sit down and talk with a sensory disabled dog about how if effects their life, how about we stop assuming how awful it is for them? I have fostered deaf and vision impaired great danes that resulted from merle x merle or merle x harl or harl x harl breedings and let me tell you, those dogs are the happiest dogs ever. So, aborting a litter and risking the bitches life because there is a 1:4 chance of the puppies being deaf and/or blind is a little excessive. It is up to each breeder then to make the decision about culling the majorily impaired dogs (deaf and blind), but there are plenty of happy, well adjusted deaf and vision impaired dogs out there. I'm sure their owners would be appalled to hear about their poor SOB of a dog and how terrible of a life it's leading.

This is not me advocated merle x merle or any other genetic form that results in impaired dogs. I just wanted to point out that it's a bit harsh to say what a poor life they are leading.

[OutlineACDs]

Originally Posted by SaraB

One thing that I want to point out about the horribly disabled deaf and/or blind puppies is that they don't know life any different. They arn't getting made fun of by the other puppies, they arn't talking around the water cooler realizing that they are lacking in a major sense. So until we can sit down and talk with a sensory disabled dog about how if effects their life, how about we stop assuming how awful it is for them? I have fostered deaf and vision impaired great danes that resulted from merle x merle or merle x harl or harl x harl breedings and let me tell you, those dogs are the happiest dogs ever. So, aborting a litter and risking the bitches life because there is a 1:4 chance of the puppies being deaf and/or blind is a little excessive. It is up to each breeder then to make the decision about culling the majorily impaired dogs (deaf and blind), but there are plenty of happy, well adjusted deaf and vision impaired dogs out there. I'm sure their owners would be appalled to hear about their poor SOB of a dog and how terrible of a life it's leading.

This is not me advocated merle x merle or any other genetic form that results in impaired dogs. I just wanted to point out that it's a bit harsh to say what a poor life they are leading.

In my breed deafness runs rampant. There is nothing we can do except BAER test puppies at 8 weeks and hope for the best. There is extensive research being done trying to find the deafness gene to help prevent this problem in future litters. As of right now though, breeding two full hearing dogs doesn't always produce a litter of full hearing puppies.

I have owned two unilaterally deaf ACD's and you couldn't even tell. Dogs aren't people and they don't sit around and feel sorry for themselves if they can't see or hear.

[~Jessie~]

Even if you're talking about blind/deaf people- who is to say that they're unhappy, especially if they've never known any different? Hellen Keller has done more than most of us will ever do in our entire LIFETIMES.

Dogs that are born blind/deaf have no idea that they're missing anything. The ones that I've seen and heard about are happy, well adjusted dogs. If I happened across a blind/deaf dog in my breed, I wouldn't hesitate to give it a home.

Do you think that you'd be happier being dead if you had no sense of smell? Of course not- you'd use your other senses and be perfectly fine.

[Lilavati]

Originally Posted by Dekka

This always irritates me. They are obviously much much more than just a registry. Heck their mission statement makes it very clear they see themselves as much more than a registry.



is very interesting, no? Not only in the 'more than just a registry' way but also in light of the acceptance of breeding practices that have an exceedingly high chance (almost a certainty) of producing puppies with serious health issues.

Heck their little slogan "We are more than champion dogs, we are the dog's champion" Heck by allowing merle/merle crossings (easily avoidable) to be registered they are hardly being 'the dog's champion' now are they?

This.

And its not like the government regulating our birth control, because the AKC is a private organization. If the AKC banned double merle breedings, you would still be perfectly free to make such breedings . . . you just couldn't register them with the AKC or show the offspring at AKC events. The AKC also claims that it is there to advocate for purebred dogs. Fine, then advocate for them, instead of permitting, even encouraging, practices that feed the AR crowd, ruin breeds (although merleXmerle is not one of those), and result in unhealthy animals. Or don't. They are a private organization, free to do as they please. And I am free to critique them for being hypocrites and doing the dog fancy no favors.


Aleron, if a breed doesn't have a problem with merlexmerle breeding, then there's no reason to ban it. The thing about the Catahoula's is fascinating. But saying people are only interested now because of that article is bunk. One of my "breeds" is the Cardigan Corgi, another breed with the merle trait, and one were great effort has been made to discourage merlexmerle breeding and prevent double merles. People have been interested, and concerned about this issue for a long time, at least in other breeds.

[Beanie]

The AKC is also a business... trying to make money. And they are not making a lot of money right now. Anybody wonder WHY exactly they opened up this Canine Pals thing to have people start registering their mixed breeds? Surely $$$$$ had nothing to do with it.

It's a nice fantasy to believe they are really advocating for the health of purebreds but realistically that's not how it works. They would be broke if they started saying "okay, YOU can't register, and YOU can't register, YOU can't either." That's why they haven't done it to this point and likely never will.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Aleron

FWIW There were some influential workingAussies that resulted from merle x merle breedings.

If AKC banned merle x merle breeding, they'd have to remove Catahoulas from their FSS program. This article is interesting regarding merle in them: http://www.donabney.com/issue_merle.php

There are breeds where there is a high risk of hip dysplasia in every puppy. According to OFA, 66% of Pug xrays submitted were graded dysplastic and none were excellent. Nearly all Cavaliers have a genetic heart defect. These problems didn't occur due to "vanity" either. Generally such issues occur due to a limited gene pool or accidentally, unknowingly being "cemented" in early in the foundation of the breed prior to knowledge of such things.

FWIW I'm not saying I think it's a great idea to breed merle to merle in Collies or Shelties or breeds at a high risk for blind/deaf double merles. But this sort of thing has been done throughout the history of the breed and the only reason it's being discussed now by people who have no involvement or interest in the breed is due to an article written by someone who seems to think breeding any merle or any Collie for that matter is questionable ethics.

I know in shelties people have been talking about merle x merle way before Chris's articles. That said I have talked to him a few times years ago and talked to BC people about him. He really seems to agree with no one about dog breeding- the working 'sheeple' (he calls them) or the show crowd. I do think he brings up some good points though sometimes, even if he is a bit sensationalist in his articles.

I would personally like to see further research done on breeds like collies and shelties versus koolies and catahoulas. I looked into koolies probably almost 5 years ago and noticed the vast amounts of merle x merle breedings and breeders stating they would never cross to a solid colored dog and it shocked me. But they swear up and down they have no issues like they do in shelties. In shelties merle x merle is just not a good idea due to the deformities. Anyways, I'd like to see how and why there seems to be a difference between breeds.

I think the ethics of doing a scientific study of these things is a little iffy but I think doing some completely documented merle x merle crosses where we know people aren't behind the scenes euthanizing deformed pups could only benefit dogs as a whole.