h
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 3,847
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 10:28 AM | Reply with quote #151 |
|
Sorry. I meant "no one other than the original poster". I thought that was implied.
__________________
 |
| Loading... | |
GinaG
POWER POSTER
Registered: 04/09/09
Posts: 2,968
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 10:43 AM | Reply with quote #152 |
|
As usual, right on target Erika..thank you for that post and clarification.
Gina
__________________
gina anelli |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 11:32 AM | Reply with quote #153 |
|
Grant,
Although pedigrees were non existant early on, we can still use other methods in determining validity of general types despite coat color.
G. Buffon 1707-1788 depicted a pied in artistic plates, as did T. Bewick 1753-1828.
Sir Peers Leigh's Mastiff 1415 supposedly founded the Lyme Hall strain and Lukey's lot began in 1835.
Throughout this period in time both fawn colors and pieds were used to describe Mastiffs, since type was the determining factor over color.
I have little doubt that Bewick was unaware of the fawn Mastiff, when he used his pied to represent the breed. Therefore, we can assume that pieds were accepted colors at that period in time, and even though pedigrees did not exist back then to validate blood into present day Mastiff stock, we should not view the pied as non Mastiff, just because recorded information is wanting! Fawn information was also weak, yet we don't have any issues with that color, even though fawn pedigrees were also wanting.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 03:06 PM | Reply with quote #154 |
|
Erica, though I see your point, I personally think I had a different take on it (maybe because it was through the way I would have looked at it). It is part of the ancestory. If it pops up, then so be it. If the pied were an absolute wonderful example of the breed and bred to a Mastiff of standard color (and thus resulting pups of standard color), I guess I see it as only cosmetic (not health or structural). Then, in the long run if another pied pops up, well again, so be it. But, you have to understand that I also do not believe fluffies are the bane of the Mastiff world. Costmetics can be dealt with and it beats the heck on our loss of type and soundness. To me, the standard is a general template...NO DOG FITS THE STANDARD PERFECTLY (at least none that I've seen) and sometimes you get something that may deviate for the standard, but in my opinion, it depends on how easy it is to "fix". Let's face it, bad shoulder set is tough to fix even in 3-4 generations! In other words, all dogs have faults (no perfect Mastiff to my knowledge).
As for someone wanting to "add" pieds to the standard, honestly, what would it hurt? I feel the same with fluffies. I guess I'm more interested in "type" than color or coat since color and coat do not affect quality of life. I love Mastiffs and that isn't going to change because of color or coat. (Steve, do not EVEN tell me coat affects type because I totally disagree with you and it's no use wasting your time).
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 03:11 PM | Reply with quote #155 |
|
Steve....didn't mean that to sound like an order! LOL  Just a headsup that I wasn't going to agree with you cuz I KNOW how your mind works (scary)!
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 03:14 PM | Reply with quote #156 |
|
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 03:15 PM | Reply with quote #157 |
|
That looks like a fluff to me!
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 04:26 PM | Reply with quote #158 |
|
Erika, Though I appreciate your intent and your opinion, I don't agree with it.
Quote: Change the coat so there is fringing on the ears, the legs, the belly and the tail - perhaps some hair on the chinny chin chin, and maybe a hint of a mane. Quote: I can clip a bit of fuzz from the area of the ears, legs and tail. Most correctly coated Mastiffs I've had my hands on DO have a thicker mane (no, they aren't fluffs). WALLAH, then I have a really well build Mastiff without health problems, correct structure and type. If I can increase bone, pigment, structure and temperament and only have to clip a bit of fluff off, I have NO problem with that. Then, I can breed to a fluff clear next generation, etc. When I asked this question at the specialty during the breeders seminar of old time breeders about keeping and breeding fluffs to a clear next generation, ALL of them answered that they WOULD do that with a structurally, temperamentally and sound Mastiff. Only one breeder in the audience disagreed and said the gene pool was too large to breed to a fluff, EVER. Well, from what I've seen in the ring lately, the gene pool may be huge, but the number of REALLY NICE, STRUCTURALLY, TEMPERMENTALLY and HEALTHY Mastiffs is NOT that big. I can count on one hand boys that I really, really LOVE. The other hand I can count the ones I kinda like and the rest fall in that catagory of "omg, SIGH?". I do think it's an opinion thing and I don't think anyone who doesn't agree with me are horrible. I just think of ALL the things in Mastiff breeding that's really important, coat type is probably the least important in my book. __________________ http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:04 PM | Reply with quote #159 |
|
Quote: Steve, do not EVEN tell me coat affects type because I totally disagree with you and it's no use wasting your time
I am beyond trying to convince you, even though my time is mine to waste!
Erika gave you a pretty good example of things getting out of hand, yet you discounted it as though it had no relevance!
We have a test for fluffs, so I can understand how a group of Mastiff breeders may react to the positive, if using a fluff in a breeding program.
But to date, we don't have a test for the pied!
Historically speaking, many Mastiff types did once exist.
There was no one pure type, or a true Mastiff type!
All shared Mastiff-like primary ingredients (i.e. size, mass, bone, heads, etc.), so they were considered a Mastiff.
Today, we have refined the parameters of what constitutes a Mastiff, and the standard has been the instrument of that modern template.
Nothing written about this breed is in stone, yet if we abandon our modern views & tenets and shift our type du jour, whichever way the subjective wind blows in the mind of some enthusiasts, who for personal reasons prefer non standardized types, we risk great long term harm to the breed we so admire!
There needs to be rules and well established axioms to follow, if we wish to have pure bred dogs. An all white Dalmatian, is not a Dalmatian, even if it's pedigree makes it so! Type has been lost and with that type, the breed itself becomes diluted into something other than what was originally planned, or intended. It doesn't matter if early Dalmatians presented little if any spotting, or came as an entirely black package! It's the present standard that must be followed, even though spots are ONLY cosmetic!
Even cosmetics can influence type and the present Mastiff type, is not a black & white breed! Or a long haired breed!
The Standard states otherwise, and it's best to follow the standard, until DNA testing assures us that straying from the standard will not reap what we erroneously sow!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:09 PM | Reply with quote #160 |
|
I know NOTHING about Dalmations, but for the sake of argument, I have to ask. If you breed an all black Dalmation or an all white Dalmation (assuming deafness isn't an issue), do you get spotted Dalmations? If so, could you use an all white or all black that was otherwise a GREAT Dalmation in a breeding program? (Especially is it "corrected" other faults in the lines).
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:27 PM | Reply with quote #161 |
|
If the black dog you speak of was the only Dalmatian of merit left in the breed, you should definitely consider that dog for breeding, but if he's just another nice dog that does not represent breed type, when many other true spotted Dalmatian types were available, then for God sake don't introduce solid black into the breed gene pool!
Spotting, is not the result of an all black dog being mated to an all white dog.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:38 PM | Reply with quote #162 |
|
Color and markings and their overall appearance are very important points to be evaluated. The ground color is pure white. In black-spotted dogs the spots are dense black. In liver-spotted dogs the spots are liver brown. Any color markings other than black or liver are disqualified. Spots are round and well-defined, the more distinct the better. They vary from the size of a dime to the size of a half-dollar. They are pleasingly and evenly distributed. The less the spots intermingle the better. Spots are usually smaller on the head, legs and tail than on the body. Ears are preferably spotted. Tri-color(which occurs rarely in this breed) is a disqualification. It consists of tan markings found on the head, neck, chest, leg or tail of a black- or liver-spotted dog. Bronzing of black spots, and fading and/or darkening of liver spots due to environmental conditions or normal processes of coat change are not tri-coloration. Patches are a disqualification. A patch is a solid mass of black or liver hair containing no white hair. It is appreciably larger than a normal sized spot. Patches are a dense, brilliant color with sharply defined, smooth edges. Patches are present at birth. Large color masses formed by intermingled or overlapping spots are not patches. Such masses should indicate individual spots by uneven edges and/or white hairs scattered throughout the mass.
Color represents 25 points in the Dalmatian, the highest number for any trait!
Scale of Points | General Appearance | 5 | | Size, proportion, substance | 10 | | Head | 10 | | Neck, topline, body | 10 | | Forequarters | 5 | | Hindquarters | 5 | | Feet | 5 | | Coat | 5 | | Color and markings | 25 | | Gait | 10 | | Temperament | 10 | | Total | 100 |
It clearly shows that this breed is defined by it's coloration!
Similarly, the Mastiff once had 40 of it's pointed schedule reserved for the head alone!
Yet many present day authorities do not consider the Mastiff a head breed!!!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:48 PM | Reply with quote #163 |
|
Actually, during the lull, I read up on Dalmation coloring and it would be impossible to have an all black or all white Dalmation, so I guess it's a moot point. They do however, have a recessive long coat gene just like Mastiffs. Apparently, Dals have a problem with the gene that makes the spots SOLID black (instead of having white hairs in the spots) causing high Uric Acid concentrations (and the related health problems associated with that). So, I guess we all have our burden to bare in finding that line between health and the standard...
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 06:07 PM | Reply with quote #164 |
|
http://paisleydals.com/color.html
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Olga
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 05/11/06
Posts: 1,611
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 06:16 PM | Reply with quote #165 |
|
Steve, would you please post " scale of points " for a mastiffs?
Olga |
| Loading... | |
Tracy
Moderator
Registered: 05/30/06
Posts: 7,563
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 07:06 PM | Reply with quote #166 |
|
I agree completely with erica, slippery slope.
__________________
Ranchlands Mastiffs
http://www.ranchlandsmastiffs.com
Member MCOA, SSMF, FAME
Rescue Volunteer SSMR
If you dont rescue, Dont Breed.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 07:48 PM | Reply with quote #167 |
|
In this year, 1891 it was decided that, in order to assist judges, a numerical value should be given to the points of the Mastiff, they were as follows:-- - Character and symmetry, 10 points
- Chest and ribs, 8 points
- Height and substance, 10 points
- Forelegs and feet, 10 points
- Skull, 12 points
- Back, loins and flank, 8 points
- Muzzle, 18 points
- Hind legs and feet, 10 points
- Eyes, 6 points
- Tail, 3 points
- Ears, 4 points
- Colour, 5 points
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
Olga
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 05/11/06
Posts: 1,611
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:12 PM | Reply with quote #168 |
|
Thank you, Grant : )
5 points. main thing is " whole mastiff", but most important attributes of the breed that makes mastiffs different from other breeds ( like color in dalmatian , 25 points) are scull, muzzle and substance. Why such a long argument( 4 pages?) When DNA marker for pied will be discovered, then it will be peoples choice to avoid those lines or to breed to them. I once heard about pied female who was bred to fawn male and it was not single pied pup in the litter. So it will be not an easy task, even if somebody will be determent to breed pied mastiffs : )
Olga |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:34 PM | Reply with quote #169 |
|
I guess I'm going to give my experience with fluffs. First, there is a whole wide range of how "fluffy" fluffy is. I've seen some that you can barely tell they are fluffs and only need a good comb out with a Furminator. There are others that need LOTS of clipping. So the answer to Erika's question is "no, I wouldn't stop toss my clippers since I never had them anyway" because the one I have is on the FAR end of the fluffy scale (barely can tell). Would a judge know if she was a fluff? My guess is that he/she probably would but it hasn't seem to hurt her so far because her great qualities WAY out way her longer hair. Remember, a flat coated Mastiff with no undercoat is as serious a fault as a fluffy (technically).
ALL of my handler automatically do the following grooming on my dogs: bath, nail clip, whiskers clipped, bit of fringe on their bum neatened up, balls trimmed up (on the boys obviously) and a good brushing. No different for my one fluff girl. She's never been shaved. Never had clippers on her (that I know of). Just a very thorough Furminator brushing. I tried using clippers on my son when he was younger. He was afraid to go out of the house for DAYS after that so I learned my lesson. I swear he was scarred for life so I don't want to do that with a dog. Oops, an aside. NOW, do I purposely breed for fluffs or endorse breeding for "rare fluffs"? Absolutely NOT.
Do I think breeding for "rare Pieds" is a good idea? Definitely not, but if I had a great representative of the breed and I wanted to breed it to get a regular colored Mastiff to get regular coated Mastiff, yup I'd probably do it.
Here is the old AKC point system from any moons ago. Notice that coat AND color were only 5 points COMBINED. That means that coat length was only 2.5% of the total value of the dog and color was only 2.5% of the total value of the dog. Taken individually, NEITHER was as important as all the other things. Personally, I think the point system is better and marginally less subjective. It also shows that such things as coat and color are NOT all that big a deal.
General character And symmetry------------------10 Height and Substance----------10 Skull-------------------------10 Face and Muzzle---------------12 Ears---------------------------5 Eyes---------------------------5 Chest and Ribs----------------10 Forelegs and Feet-------------10 Back, Loins and Flanks--------10 Hindlegs and Feet-------------10 Tail---------------------------3 Coat and Color-----------------5 ------- Total------------------------100
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:43 PM | Reply with quote #170 |
|
Quote: Remember, a flat coated Mastiff with no undercoat is as serious a fault as a fluffy (technically).
Totally incorrect!
Historical accounts required a very fine coat in early standards, but that aside, a short coat, or even bald Mastiff, does not alter the silhouette!
You can discount the silhouette all you want, but type is affected by form and a long coat alters visual form. That aesthetic should not be discounted!
Mastiff
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:47 PM | Reply with quote #171 |
|
 Arthur Wardle - Smooth Coated Saint Bernard or Pied Mastiff?
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:49 PM | Reply with quote #172 |
|
Quote: Outer coat straight, coarse, and of moderately short length. Undercoat dense, short, and close lying. Coat should not be so long as to produce "fringe" on the belly, tail, or hind legs. Fault Long or wavy coat.
No, this is what the standard says. A Mastiff without an undercoat is still a fault. Just because it doesn't SAY it's a fault, a flat coat without an undercoat is STILL not correct (so is a fault). AND, either way, a very minor fault either way in my opinion (and the opinion from the original point system apparently).
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:59 PM | Reply with quote #173 |
|
Quote: You can discount the silhouette all you want, but type is affected by form and a long coat alters visual form. That aesthetic should not be discounted!
So, what about a the example I gave of the dog that just needs a good brushing to make her appear (in silhouette) completely normal? Yes, she has a slight wave to her hair but so does her normal coated dad. My retired bitch also has a slight wave on her bum and she isn't a fluffy either. Both of them have done exceedingly well in the show ring under several long time breeder judges. WHY, because they are otherwise awesome representatives of the breed, have great health testing an awesome temperaments.
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 09:18 PM | Reply with quote #174 |
|
The degree of altering a fluff is a concern as well, since a judge can be fooled into thinking a fluff is not a fluff through alteration. The fluff has a genetic divergence from non fluffs, or normal coat length genetics. Phenotype and genotype should not be evaluated as one, if in fact there is a difference.
The point scale valued peripheral traits less than substantive traits, but that does not mean there was an equivocacy between the two, when present in one and not the other!
In other words, a tailless Mastiff should only be reduced by 3 points max under the pointed system, but if it was a genetic trait instead of an accident, the concern would have a greater impact on the breed, even though it's still only a 3 point issue!
At some point, common sense must trump technical loopholes in a standard!
Genetic anomalies that cannot be tested and atypical of standard requirements , becomes a loose cannon if left unchecked.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 09:37 PM | Reply with quote #175 |
|
Quote: Genetic anomalies that cannot be tested and atypical of standard requirements , becomes a loose cannon if left unchecked. Quote: Are we talking fluffs are pieds? Fluffs can be tested for. Pieds are a different matter, but nonetheless, something that is our heritage. If you are going there then I'll say big ears, short tail (not cropped), straight stifles, short back, bad bites, splayed feet, cobby bodies, bad toplines, light eyes etc are also genetic anomalies and CANNOT be tested for and are actually a bigger percent (in terms of the point system) than coat OR color in the judging scenerio. Unfortunately, I'm seeing some of those things being awarded by judges because of who is on the other end of the lead OR because the judge has NO clue what they are doing. THAT is more dissappointing to me than coat OR color. One of my FAVORITE boys is a dog that is technically what they call a "reverse brindle" but BOY is he nice otherwise!!! But, I digress... As for a judge being "fooled" by a groomed fluff (regardless of the degree), I think that is a crock. ANY decent judge can tell the difference between a correctly coated Mastiff and a fluff (or flat coated Mastiff). Then, it should only be faulted as much as the 2.5% I mentioned above. By the way, what is the breed of the post above. It doesn't look like a full blood Mastiff or a full blood Saint to me. __________________ http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 11:38 PM | Reply with quote #176 |
|
Are we talking fluffs are pieds? No fluffs are not pieds, but before the fluff test was introduced, many well known breeders were advocating the use of fluffs in their breeding regime! That, was irresponsible! Fluffs can be tested for. I stated that! Pieds are a different matter, but nonetheless, something that is our heritage. There are lots of traits that have been in early Mastiff types, it doesn't mean we must reintroduce those traits back into the modern gene pool, or promote those genes already in the pool. All because it isn't a health related issue, doesn't mean that it's OK to alter modern type! If you are going there then I'll say big ears, short tail (not cropped), straight stifles, short back, bad bites, splayed feet, cobby bodies, bad toplines, light eyes etc are also genetic anomalies and CANNOT be tested for and are actually a bigger percent (in terms of the point system) than coat OR color in the judging scenerio. Unfortunately, I'm seeing some of those things being awarded by judges because of who is on the other end of the lead OR because the judge has NO clue what they are doing. THAT is more dissappointing to me than coat OR color. One of my FAVORITE boys is a dog that is technically what they call a "reverse brindle" but BOY is he nice otherwise!!! But, I digress...There are many traits that are not advantageous to the breed, but we shouldn't discount one and advance the other. High rears are unwanted, so are straight stifles, cow hocks, poor bone, lousy heads, etc., etc., etc. Why must we advance an unwarranted trait and justify it's promotion by listing other unwanted traits? Light eyes & haw are in the breed, because people discounted the importance of those traits. Now it permeates many lines, but if argued for when they were early in their expression, you would make the same argument you are presently making for fluffs! If we wish to improve the breed, we need to stick to the standard and not rationalize the influx of unwanted traits!
As for a judge being "fooled" by a groomed fluff (regardless of the degree), I think that is a crock. ANY decent judge can tell the difference between a correctly coated Mastiff and a fluff (or flat coated Mastiff). Then, it should only be faulted as much as the 2.5% I mentioned above. Judges have been fooled! Good judges I might add! We no longer use a point system, so 2.5% is a myth at present. I might add, that the fluff was going to be a DQ in the next revision under Gensberger-Rosenblatt!
By the way, what is the breed of the post above. It doesn't look like a full blood Mastiff or a full blood Saint to me. Does it look atypical? That's what happens when you distort accepted colorations! It confuses breed recognition by distorting type, modern type!...........It is a smooth Saint BTW!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/08/12 at 11:57 PM | Reply with quote #177 |
|
Correction to Goldblatt from Rosenblatt***
Original MCOA coat requirement:
Outer coat moderately coarse. Undercoat, dense, short and close lying.
Revision by G&G:
"Outer coat straight, coarse, and of moderately short length. Undercoat dense, short, and close lying. Coat should not be so long as to produce "fringe" on the belly, tail, or hind legs. Fault Long or wavy coat."
Note, that outer coat is now emphasized as being straight, plus wavy & long added as a fault.
How often do we see wavy coats, or coats that appear too long in length?
Considered a minor trait by some, yet was going to be a DQ, because of the aesthetic & genetic impact it could have taken over time. These two well established breeders understood the ramifications if left unchecked and without any test available to control the genetic flow.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 12:49 AM | Reply with quote #178 |
|
It didn't look like a Saint to me, smooth or otherwise.
Quote: High rears are unwanted, so are straight stifles, cow hocks, poor bone, lousy heads, etc., etc., etc. Why must we advance an unwarranted trait and justify it's promotion by listing other unwanted traits? Quote: AWHHH, but Steve, as a breeder we MUST make those choices to some extent. You MUST have a mental checklist of what bad traits you can live with and what ones you cannot because there are no perfect Mastiffs. In my opinion, there are things that are much worse than others and those are the decisions I must make. Yes, you can try to breed away from the bad traits you have, but in order to find the best mate you can, you may have to accept some flaw. For example, there was a boy I really wanted to use but his head wasn't exactly what I wanted, but I looked at his sibling and liked their heads but not other things about them (the sibling boys). My girl had a strong head and so did everything around her. The boy with the smaller head had a killer body, great temperament and great health testing. I did NOT consider his head perfect, but not hideous either. It was worth it to me to get everything else he had to offer. On down the road might I get a small head? Well, yes but there are homes for those too. To me, structure, health and temperament are important too so I make judgment calls. There are flaws I can live with and know I can eventually breed out and others I can't (too many to list). THAT is the hard decisions breeders must make. And, without a doubt, if I had a girl that I needed to improve on bone and she was fluffy clear, would I breed to a fluffy male to get some of that bone? If he had most everything else I wanted, you betcha. (OMG, that sounds like Sarah Palin...arghh). I'll breed a carrier to a carrier in very specific circumstances. I don't mind a bit expressing that. Do I get fluffies. Yup, I do but if that is the WORST thing about them, it's something I can live with. I can either manage that in my own breeding programs or sell them to wonderful pet homes (at the SAME price as other pets; NO, they are not advertised as "special, rare Mastiffs" for more money). Quite frankly, I'd rather live with that than the list of yuk you listed above. Again, it's choice and a breeder has to walk that tight rope of deciding what faults are somewhat acceptable and what ones aren't. For some, it IS the fluffy gene that is not acceptable to them(either carrier or full fluffs) and I DO NOT fault them for that in their own breeding program. It's their choice. By the same token, I don't feel like anyone should fault me for choosing the fluff gene as opposed to MANY of the other things that actually AFFECT quality of life or true type (like some bonehead who compared the fluff gene to severe health issues) By true type, I am NOT talking about silhouette. As for it be considered a fault by whomever,....clearly, it wasn't adopted as such and so it's a moot point. I'm sure if you had it your way, it would be a dq and if I had it my way, it would not be a fault at all. Clearly, neither of us matter one bit. I accept it as a minor fault. Since I'm the one breeding and making the tough choices, I do what I thinks best. Either people can buy my pups or choose to pass. I do not hide anything so it is TOTALLY the choice of those buying my pups or choosing to stud their boys to my girls. __________________ http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 12:50 AM | Reply with quote #179 |
|
PS. Sorry we hijacked this thread. Back to PIEDS!!
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
Janine
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 1,237
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 02:26 AM | Reply with quote #180 |
|
It does not really matter what we, as individuals want, the standard will not be changed to allow pied so that is really the end of it.
It is a subject that causes division, and great discussion, some are for it and some passionately against.
Both sides of the argument make sense as well, I can see where each is coming from. My thoughts are known, I like it and would like it in, but not going to happen like I said.
When the KC bought in non-standard colour back in 05 it was hit on the head quick smart by both the MA and the OEMC.
As long as people who have the pied crop up now and again are open about it others can avoid the lines if they choose, from experience they still make great pets and companions.
I seriously doubt Simon and Jennifer will be able to breed these babies anyway, they will have to go on the limited register which makes them pet only. I also know how devoted they are to their dogs and the breed in general and there is no way in this world they would do anything detrimental to the mastiff as a whole.
I think, I cannot speak for them, but the title and reference to 1st Generation only means it is the first litter they have produced with this colour popping up. It may never happen again either, the people who bred my pied have never produced another and they have had a few litters since he was born. Lines very close to theirs did but again, it has been one off.
I am not 100% sure about this but I think Gloria Davis only had the one litter of pied pups as did Amasha Caffyn.
All of these breeders are responsible with the welfare of the breed foremost in their minds, not one of them did a breeding expecting pied to crop up, but they did and I am thankful that it is known about, times changed so there is no longer any need to cull these pups and they can be placed in pet homes where they are still very much mastiffs and loved as such. Bless the limited register.
Janine. |
| Loading... | |
Landondale
Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 662
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 07:09 AM | Reply with quote #181 |
|
This has been interesting reading! Thanks to all who contributed.
The puppies are just adorable and I look so forward to watching them grow!!! Thanks for sharing them with us.
__________________
Judi Mott ~ Landondale Mastiffs |
| Loading... | |
KB
Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 126
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 09:29 AM | Reply with quote #182 |
|
The OEMC founders, for what ever reasoning they had, decided to only promote the fawn, apricot and brindle colors. The pied and black colors were found in the breed and by selecting against them they did the breed a disservice.
Color doesn't make the Mastiff!
The 'breed' was bred mainly based on character and temperament prior to the formation of the 'clubs'. It is the premier canine companion guardian of the people and has been for centuries.
If these pups turn out to be healthy and of correct temperament, character and type(color aside) then there should be no problem in their perpetuation. |
| Loading... | |
GinaG
POWER POSTER
Registered: 04/09/09
Posts: 2,968
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 09:50 AM | Reply with quote #183 |
|
KB...what about the exploitation of the Mastiff breed? I love reading about the history of our breed, but am shocked at the numbers of litters per year registered with AKC. And rescue is always busy. We used to be considered "rare" but now if a unusual and "colorful" Mastiff appears on the scene, I wonder if folks won't rush to get the once in a million pup...like I keep repeating...I think we have enough fawn, brindles and apricots to go around, does their really NEED to be more? The very thought of pieds being touted as designer dogs scares me...I'm not saying this is what Gammonwood is doing, they love their Mastiffs and dedication to the protection and welfare of the breed is paramount in my eyes.
Just my thoughts.
Gina
__________________
gina anelli |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 10:39 AM | Reply with quote #184 |
|
Quote: I'm sure if you had it your way, it would be a dq
Pre testing, you would be correct, as far as breeding goes! Since the gene could not be detected and therefore, passed into the general population by irresponsible breeding practices.
Post testing, if a full blown fluff looking much like a TM
came into the Mastiff ring, should it compete with the rest?
It's just a coat issue, you might say! So what's the big deal?
Well, if we don't care about type, or aesthetics, then by all means include the fluff and the longer the hair the better!
The erroneous argument used to validate this anomaly & others, is that other negative traits are much worse! So, the lesser of evils, becomes the template used to enact bad aesthetics.
All is well and the world can sleep in peace.
We also hear, "I can breed this out, so no biggy!"
In reality, I have never seen, or known of any Mastiff breeder, who has bred anything out of a line!
I have known breeders who improved on prior forms and produced a flyer or two, but never knew of one who used a program to eliminate unwanted traits!
In some DNA tests, breeders can now become very cavalier about controls within their lines. So a fluff issue is no longer any problem, according to those who advocate breeding fluffs to improve the quality of their Mastiffs.
Yet, before any test, a number of fluff owners & breeders felt no responsibility in safeguarding the gene pool. They overtly stated that they had no problem breeding to a fluff, if the dog looked great in all other aspects!
We also hear of there not being many decent studs around to choose from.
Another rationalized reason to use the fluff. If we need a reason, we can surely find one, even if it makes little sense.
Whether we like it or not, color & coat does affect how we view the Mastiff.
It's why fewer brindles were placed in the past, compared to fawns & apricots at shows.
Aesthetics may not be highly valued, especially if derived from color & coat issues, yet those two factors represent the most impact, when first viewing any breed. The entire dog is covered by coat & color, so before we observe other traits, the first impression is of the whole dog in it's cosmetic costume.
I know, to a die hard fluffy fancier, I'm just talking to the wind.
I once owned a dog, my first dog, which was said to be a miniature Fox Terrier. He had one ear up and one ear down and I would have loved to have bred him, if given the opportunity to have more! I was 11 years old and could care less about standards, or pedigrees!
It's fortunate, my youthful enthusiasm could not gain momentum, as my adult thinking is certainly better in making judgments, compared to my raw, emotional, 11 year old desires.
No doubt, the only one who saw importance in my mini Fox Terrier was me!
Perhaps I could have convinced others to recognize the breed over time and breed for one ear up & one ear down in the standard once created!
I sure do miss that dog and could easily be convinced that all of his cosmetic flaws & minor issues, were actually assets to be heralded as desirable traits in a mini Fox Terrier. Such is the way of the heart, especially when it comes to types we have come to know & love.
Objectivity is a rare commodity, and rarely found in canine fanciers who live with non standard canine representatives, or in those, who subjectively like non standardized traits from afar!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 10:55 AM | Reply with quote #185 |
|
Quote: Color doesn't make the Mastiff!
One job of late 1800's Mastiffs were guarding estates from poachers.
A dog with lots of white (pied), would reflect moonlight and not be effective as a night watchman's dog if seen too easily in the dark during moonlit nights. It's why the brindle was favored for that duty.
So color did make the Mastiff better in some regards, even though only cosmetic in nature!
I might add, that even black nails have a reason for being preferred in the standard, as they make for a harder nail, which wears better, due to the melonin content!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
KB
Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 126
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 11:12 AM | Reply with quote #186 |
|
GinaG, exploitation of the Mastiff breed is a concern but color will not be its downfall. The pied coloration should have never been excluded from the gene pool.
The best way to prevent exploitation of the Mastiff is for breeders to use quality Mastiffs who are temperamentally stable, physically sound and healthy stock regardless of whether the parents are of an 'approved' color.
|
| Loading... | |
GinaG
POWER POSTER
Registered: 04/09/09
Posts: 2,968
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 02:35 PM | Reply with quote #187 |
|
ok...then why do we have so many Mastiffs? Do you think the breed is over populated or just being over bred? Even the so called "reputable" breeders are breeding 4-5 bitches at a time ..I can think of a couple right now that I would never recommend to anyone because of high volume and problems with Epilepsy in their lines that are being ignored.
I guess I have been around too long and have seen too many Mastiffs in precarious situations. We can talk "stock" and health, but sadly our breed has gone from relative obscurity to a dime a dozen.
best to your family and beasties too. KB..
Gina
__________________
gina anelli |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 03:25 PM | Reply with quote #188 |
|
Quote: I know, to a die hard fluffy fancier, I'm just talking to the wind.
Quote: Do you think the breed is over populated or just being over bred? Even the so called "reputable" breeders are breeding 4-5 bitches at a time ..I can think of a couple right now that I would never recommend to anyone because of high volume and problems with Epilepsy in their lines that are being ignored.
Gina, I completely agree with you here. I breed once a year. In a "brave" year, I might go 2. That's pretty SOP for most small hobby breeders. Because of breeding so rarely, I can REALLY screen homes. I can talk to them many times and research their home. If I bred even 7-8 litters a year, there's no way you could do that AND keep up with the puppies you sold. Since I sell most of my pups on limited registration and any on full are co-owned, I like to think I'm doing my best not to be a part of the rescue problem. It's so unfortunate that some of the dogs doing the top winning are from those commercial breeders. From the outside looking in, I know newbies think "oh, they have winning dogs, so they must be a good and reputable breeder", when in fact, it's more a case of throw enough poop against the wall and something BOUND to stick...I've learned that I want to deal only with the small hobby breeders in searching for studs. I want someone whom I can trust to tell me the good, the bad and the ugly about their pups. A commercial breeder has to MOVE THAT MERCHANDISE so they aren't going to fully inform a new buyer. Oops, off topic again. Sorry...
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 04:24 PM | Reply with quote #189 |
|
KB,
What about excessive white on feet & chest?
Why exclude those traits, which are certainly more prevalent from a historical perspective!
If we decide to include pieds, then other white patterns should be considered on equal footing, so where does it end?
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 05:11 PM | Reply with quote #190 |
|
If anyone believes that white will not invade all breeding parameters, if enabled to do so, then think again!
The road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions.
We have enough problems, just trying to get good rears and toplines.
We've been able to produce a few truly outstanding Mastiffs, but we have never consolidated the breed into a breed that can consistently breed true to form.
Therefore, before we introduce, or focus on non standardized cosmetic traits, we should concentrate our efforts on creating a breed that not only epitomizes the standard, but breeds true to form. This can only happen, if we concentrate our efforts on breeding programs, which facilitate the best long term outcomes to that end.
Adding pieds to the standard, is premature, since other demons need addressing, before we can tackle other peripheral issues. In the future, we can revisit the pied phenomenon and be in a better place to evaluate it's reintroduction into the general Mastiff population!
Until that time, we best concern ourselves with breeding programs, which can actualize lots of flyers, instead of just the few, that Teresa has mentioned after stuff hits the wall & sticks!
We need breeding regimens that go well beyond wall sticking, programs that insure a buyer of getting a Mastiff with a great head & rear, which does not represent the exception, but the rule!
I don't know if I'll see this scenario in my lifetime, but until we get serious and debate the blockage, which prevents such progress, I will continue to press for greater understanding of the science needed to develop such programs, that can produce consistent forms of Mastiffs, that we embrace as representing the standard and photograph as the ideal.
After one hundred years of controversy, we should have realized that another approach is needed to get to higher ground!
So I'll keep fighting the good fight, just as long as there are people willing to listen to the science involved in bringing this breed into the 22nd century!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
KB
Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 126
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 05:37 PM | Reply with quote #191 |
|
GinaG, I do feel the breed is being over bred but that is a topic all its own and the debate would be lengthy.
SteveO, If the color has multiple historical references then it should not have been and should not now be excluded. White on the feet, chest and even the muzzle are all historically based for the breed. Wolsey is a prime example of a good dog for the time with white feet who was used at stud. The VanDyke Mastiff has the common white blaze on its muzzle and it does not detract from its appearance. You were also kind enough to post many pics of all of these traits in the preceding pages and it is easy to recognize these dogs as Mastiffs.
If we want to talk color faults then blue is a color without historical reference and should not be allowed. |
| Loading... | |
GinaG
POWER POSTER
Registered: 04/09/09
Posts: 2,968
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 06:19 PM | Reply with quote #192 |
|
You are right KB (you can just call me Gina..LOL) it is a lengthy topic and pertains to this thread I think. What I am trying to say is History is past and yes color was all over the place. But this is "now" and if we go ahead and add pieds, pinto's, whatever to the already over burgeoned population of Mastiffs, I'm afraid of the consequences to the breed fancy. How and why would we think to allow tri colored Mastiffs into the mix? They had their day in the sun and I think we have so much more to concentrate on than bringing in colors. How would we distinguish correct "marbling" and such? It's all too much for this old lady...LOL..
I''ll leave it up to the experts and get off my soap box. Again, thanks for the lively debate.
Gina
__________________
gina anelli |
| Loading... | |
Teresa
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/28/07
Posts: 4,017
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 09:37 PM | Reply with quote #193 |
|
And, might I add, (for the most part) a very friend debate!
__________________
http://www.oasismastiffs.com
http://www.mastiffchat.com
Align yourself with those with kind hearts, gentle spirits and honest intentions. Be a good friend and let good friends know how much they are valued! Live every day with the intention of doing what is right... |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/09/12 at 11:42 PM | Reply with quote #194 |
|
Quote: If we want to talk color faults then blue is a color without historical reference and should not be allowed.
Blue does have historical reference and I posted the picture of a blue brindle from the CC Marshall article.
Historical references pre standard, do not qualify as acceptable, if we are to have a modern standard!
Otherwise, we can site hundreds of historical traits that existed on Mastiff types over the centuries, which do not presently exist on modern stock! Do we re-introduce those traits, just because they were once referenced in the past?
Think it through!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
tmfwmf
Registered: 03/21/11
Posts: 7
|
| Posted 07/10/12 at 12:23 AM | Reply with quote #195 |
|
Since I am relatively knew to the breed I don't feel like I have a lot to add to this except for some points that were already brought up:
Quote: KB...what about the exploitation of the Mastiff breed? I love reading about the history of our breed, but am shocked at the numbers of litters per year registered with AKC. And rescue is always busy. We used to be considered "rare" but now if a unusual and "colorful" Mastiff appears on the scene, I wonder if folks won't rush to get the once in a million pup...like I keep repeating...I think we have enough fawn, brindles and apricots to go around, does their really NEED to be more? The very thought of pieds being touted as designer dogs scares me.
Spot on! I think too much focus is being put on how this will affect the breed from the standard-as-it-is view and not from the puppy buyer view. People have a tendency to be drawn to the rare and novelty. While some breeders may use pieds for their conformation qualites, others will use them for the high price they can command from the public. The labrador retriever world is already seeing this come about. Silver labs have been popping up with greater frequency in the past decade because some breeders want to cash in on this "rare" color - and boy do they ever! A silver pup with no title or health testing in it's 5 generation pedigree can go for $1000+ easily. To compare, a pup from extremely well bred field lines with both parents being extensively health tested and titled may fetch the same price (I'm sure the same could be said for a show bred lab pup w/ equal qualifications). These responsible breeders find themselves justiying to the public why their puppies are being sold at 3-4x the cost of the average newspaper lab puppy, yet the silver breeders just have to put "RARE" and Paypal buttons on their sites and they have waiting lists for the next 5 breedings planned for the year. I believe Steve also brought up the labrador standard to point out how color is specificed to prevent others from being introduced. Unfortunately, this was not fool-proof. Many silver lab pedigrees can be traced back to a single kennel the bred both labs and weimaraners (which is why many believe the silver gene was introduced by a lab/weim cross). Once others began to take notice of the rise of these silvered colored "labs", many cried foul to the breed club and AKC. The story goes an AKC representative when out to evalute some of these silver labs and could not discount them as fully bred labradors and the decision was made to allow these labs to be registered - as chocolates! So now we have breeders producing silver labs that are AKC registered, even the breed club itself opposes this color: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Silver
Interesting, no?
|
| Loading... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/10/12 at 06:39 AM | Reply with quote #196 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by KB
SteveO, If the color has multiple historical references then it should not have been and should not now be excluded.
Where is the factual, multiple historical references to our present Mastiff breed ?
White on the feet, chest and even the muzzle are all historically based for the breed. Wolsey is a prime example of a good dog for the time with white feet who was used at stud. The VanDyke Mastiff has the common white blaze on its muzzle and it does not detract from its appearance.
Any dogs recorded as Mastiffs will have faults, but it does not mean these faults should be condoned as common place and OK !!
You were also kind enough to post many pics of all of these traits in the preceding pages and it is easy to recognize these dogs as Mastiffs.
Mastiff mixes, so no relevance to the present breed, formed since the standard was written, like it or not !!
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
KB
Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 126
|
| Posted 07/10/12 at 08:30 AM | Reply with quote #197 |
|
Grant,
'like it or not!' if one chooses to breed based on an approved color and excludes a dog as a possible breeding candidate based on a color fault, then you are breeding for color!
The approved colors for a Mastiff can be found in other breeds as well but it does not make these dogs a Mastiff.
What makes a Mastiff a Mastiff has not, is not and should never be based upon color. |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/10/12 at 10:46 AM | Reply with quote #198 |
|
The present modern standard sets the pace for what one must demand in a correct Mastiff.
It matters not what did, or did not get included pre standard.
What does matter, is that the present standard be followed as closely as possible by breeders, in order to maintain breed type.
Any deviation from this process will work against breed type and therefore against the betterment of the breed.
Any amended inclusions made to any standard, must be well thought out before implementation. Otherwise, it leaves a vulnerable window of exposure to the general gene pool.
If new traits can be controlled through genetic testing, then and only then, should those new traits be up for reviewed inclusion.
It makes no difference if these traits pop up within lines from time to time. The appearance of these traits do not validate standardized inclusion just by their rare appearance.
We would never consider amending the standard to accept very large ears & haw, even though many present day Mastiffs express those traits!
If we choose to look away and not address those faults, it's our collective doing, but it does not validate their presence, as the standard invalidates their form & expression.
If the ear set is placed too high on the head, or if the ears are raised at their base, it is incorrect, even though many historical images show such ear carriage in types called Mastiff!
We should not automatically assume, that ancient examples, or present expression of such examples, determines what should be brought into a modern standard.
This applies to all traits, be it minor, or major, be it cosmetic, or structural!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
KB
Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 126
|
| Posted 07/10/12 at 03:55 PM | Reply with quote #199 |
|
| So by this line of reasoning if one of the approved colors was removed from the current standard then any dog of this color would no longer be a potential breeding prospect even if the dog was an exceptional Mastiff otherwise? |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,441
|
| Posted 07/10/12 at 04:29 PM | Reply with quote #200 |
|
If you've fully understood what I've stated, you would recognize my caveat before any changes are enacted!
Therefore, if there are negative ramifications, such as eliminating an accepted standardized color, then it would not be instituted!
Non standardized colors, or fragmented genetics that attribute to uncontrolled color patterns, color size and placement, should not be added to the standard, until such colors can be DNA tested & controlled, or somehow kept apart from the general gene pool.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
