brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 09:42 AM | Reply with quote #251 |
|
Steve how does the new test open the door for pied reg. If anything is SLAMS IT SHUT!!! You test for fluffs which are incorrect you test for other things to make sure that that trait ISN"T carried over so I do not follow your reasoning. This should make it a case closed scenario unless they happen to have the DNA chart from the mastiffs that formed the ORIGINAL standard. I might be missing something here so please help me understand.
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 09:55 AM | Reply with quote #252 |
|
I O.K. the post and this 100% ends the pied argument period. Hopefully we will soon have a viable test for pieds that will tell the breeder that they are passing on the NON STANDARD trait so again I don't see how this in any way helps Gammawoods stance. OHHHH I get it. Lets flood the market with what will be now DOCUMENTED NON STANDARD pups and then lets rail against the powers that be to try to force them to include the NON STANDARD type. That is about as low as one can go. I said it many times and now I am receiving e-mails from people that feel as I do but are not as vocal in my IM so I guess I must be on the right track here. Gammawood stop the nonsense as you are supposed to be one of the best in the business and produce as some claim the best STANDARD mastiffs around. This is does not fit into your business model and the ONLY time I have ever witnessed things like this is when the companies are hit hard financially and they are attempting to make up for lost revenues by CREATING A NEW TREND!!!
Look at it like this .... some on here can't think for themselves and will undoubtedly say well if Gammawood says it's O.K. and are producing NON STANDARD mastiffs than it must be O.K. This is the rabbit hole that we MUST not go down. Even worse is what happens when someone gets a hold of TWO pied pups and breeds them with the intent to produce MORE pieds. This is NOT what we are supposed to be about people because if we are then what is the point of the standard?
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 10:00 AM | Reply with quote #253 |
|
I want to breed a mastiff with an elephant. If I get enough generations and sell enough interest can we CHANGE THE STANDARD to include them. Sounds about as ridiculous as this whole argument about including pieds but follows Gamawoods reasoning.
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 11:40 AM | Reply with quote #254 |
|
Quote: You test for fluffs which are incorrect you test for other things to make sure that that trait ISN"T carried over so I do not follow your reasoning.
If a test is available, you can control outcome. This prevents the blind proliferation throughout a gene pool.
The value judgment, regarding which trait can be seen as correct, or incorrect, is a separate issue, based on a number of factors, history being only one determinant!
As I stated in another thread, the apricot brindle was non standard at one point and now never questioned!
__________________
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... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 11:56 AM | Reply with quote #255 |
|
I question it. Apricots being accepted is exactly what my refference to elephant crossing was about. See enough people cried (like the babies who complained about Crufts) and the powers that bee folded. That's what happened period. Show me proof of otherwise and I will recant. Oh and if we forget out history it has a bed habbit of repeating itself and in this case it means the destruction of the old english mastiff as we know it. Wan more proof take a look at the American mastiff. Do I need to continue?
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 11:58 AM | Reply with quote #256 |
|
Sorry for the horrible grammer but I am speed typing and have been RWEALLY sick these last few days (reason for my abscence) so I am not on top of my game right now but after the IM I recieved I had to post.
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/16/12 at 12:56 PM | Reply with quote #257 |
|
The standard is a living document and not etched in stone.
Amendments will continue to be made over the next 500 years and rightfully so!
The modern Mastiff has no basis in history!
So that it sinks in, I'll repeat...............The modern Mastiff has no basis in history!
We don't see what we see today, in prior renderings of Mastiff types dating back several hundred years ago. They look similar, but not the identical forms & colors we see today! Do we then rewrite the standard, or amend the present standard, to eliminate what we've now come to regard as correct?
Popular influences take time to gain traction and even more time to become part of a standard. Before that happens, anomalies first become better known and observed instead of being hidden. Then, if enough fanciers agree that the anomaly can be justified, it can become legitimized and part of the standard. This is almost inevitable, when a trait saturates all genes, or if a reputed wrong, involves everyone's Mastiff through common linkage in pedigrees! If 99% of ALL Mastiffs contain Deer Run blood, we aren't going to successfully denigrate Deer Run progenitors, and was probably the reason why the AKC closed their records on Deer Run doings.
If the Mastiffs being produced don't resemble the standard, it's always easier and more popular to adjust the standard to fit the norm.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we reword the standard to read....slight haw is acceptable, provided it is not too extreme. Why not? Breeders won't sacrifice major traits for minor traits, so it's inevitable that small tight almond shaped eyes will become a thing of the past!
Therefore, the issue of pieds will not be any different than other trait preferences, if given enough support and expression over time. Being so rare has not helped the pied proliferate. This might change!
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 09:56 PM | Reply with quote #258 |
|
1911 image of a Mastiff type in pied.
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 10:10 PM | Reply with quote #259 |
|
Very possible! Also possibly the reason for the Mastiff pied influence.
__________________
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... | |
h
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 3,842
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 10:39 PM | Reply with quote #260 |
|
I don't care what the dog is. That is a wonderful photograph!
H
__________________
 |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 10:40 PM | Reply with quote #261 |
|
I did say Mastiff type!
__________________
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... | |
h
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 3,842
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 10:43 PM | Reply with quote #262 |
|
Steve,
Do you own the photo? I love it.
H
__________________
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 10:50 PM | Reply with quote #263 |
|
It's on ebay. You can buy it!
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 11:02 PM | Reply with quote #264 |
|
Color & coat influences type, contrary to the popular opinion of some.
As a goof, I once posted a Saint, which I photo colored into a total apricot with black mask.
It certainly fooled most who viewed the picture.
Conversely, in a number of instances, a pied Mastiff could easily be mistaken for a Saint (Linda's photo, being just one such Saintly image).
Identity issues would be another caveat, which might present a firewall against standard revision for inclusion.
__________________
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... | |
h
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 3,842
|
| Posted 07/17/12 at 11:18 PM | Reply with quote #265 |
|
Do you have a link?
H
__________________
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/18/12 at 12:59 AM | Reply with quote #266 |
|
I sent it to you in the PM
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/18/12 at 01:12 PM | Reply with quote #267 |
|
Samuel Clemens and Saint with Mastiff qualities.
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/18/12 at 01:12 PM | Reply with quote #268 |
|
__________________
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... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/19/12 at 06:20 PM | Reply with quote #269 |
|
So let me get this straight .... Of all of the examples of pi eds from a historical point of view PRE-DATE (meaning the English mastiff DID NOT EXIST) the standard and the argument is that if enough NON standard pups are bred and people complain about it then the Powers that be MIGHT change the standard to include them. NOT because it is for the betterment of the breed or because of a historical (since not one single pied mastiff has ever been recognized as meeting or being part of the standard going all the way back to 1885 which is when the English Mastiff was first created. Gammonwood you really should watch your own videos) presence but rather to shut up all of the breeders looking to monopolise (lets just call it what it is already people) on a NEW DESIGNER (especially with the testing that seems to be on its' way) PUP. Thanks for clearing that up.
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/19/12 at 06:21 PM | Reply with quote #270 |
|
I also find it really funny that not one of those Gammonwood supporters has said a thing about them skaing the laws of the land NOT ONE OF YOU!!!!! Funny how this place works.
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
Janine
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 1,235
|
| Posted 07/19/12 at 07:23 PM | Reply with quote #271 |
|
What laws of the land pray tell???
Janine. |
| Loading... | |
h
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 3,842
|
| Posted 07/19/12 at 11:00 PM | Reply with quote #272 |
|
I have the same question as Janine; what laws?
My other questions are more like a series of questions. Who is Brindlelove? What are his dogs like? What do they look like? What are their pedigrees? Who is his favorite all time Mastiff? What Mastiffs/lines/kennels does he most admire? What is his dream breeding? Which breeders are currently teaching/mentoring him? Can we see pictures of him and his dogs? Has he ever spoken to Si and Jen?
Brindlelove is not giving us anything to work with. How can his argument have any credibility if we know absolutely nothing about him? Until he opens up to us and shares with us, he appears to be just another troll.
Brindlelove, prove us all wrong by opening up to us and making a solid argument.
Right now, Gammonwood's argument that pied pigmentation has always been in our breed and should not be culled is better than anything you have offered to this point.
I have no opinion either way because no one has been convincing enough to sway me.
Si and Jen, appear more credible because they are an open book and their dogs and films speak volumes. This strengthens their argument about pieds where you have offered nothing to strengthen your argument against them.
H
__________________
|
| Loading... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 01:48 AM | Reply with quote #273 |
|
Once again you show just how little you read in these threads and what a blind cheer leader you are but just for you and I quote "As for a second generation of pieds, come what may. If we cannot register our pieds on the full register, then according to Australian rules we cannot breed from them a registered litter. We will breed the lines however, (how ironic that this is “legally” allowed), and as always, we will be upfront and honest about faults in the lines as well as “non-standard colors” that have been produced from those lines. " Or how about all of the posts about how Gammonwood is in Australia and they have laws governing these types of things or what about this little gem where they basically tell the standard to pound rocks "However, let it be known unequivocally that we will be proactive in our attempts to have these dogs recognized by the “powers that be” as pure bred Mastiffs. If this occurs, (unlikely!), only the said pieds that are worthy of breeding will be promoted to full register." Now that we have that out of the way lets move on me.
I only have ONE DOG H AS I HAVE STATED EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHE WAS FIXED (and not show worthy but every bit a mastiff) SO NO BREEDING FOR ME NOR DO NOR DID I EVER HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF DOING SO. I HAVE STATED THIS SEVERAL TIMES ALL OVER THIS SITE. Did that finally sink in H? Get it now. This is not about me but what Gammonwood wrote out in their own words and the people like you who actually said that Gammonwood would never do this (like how you questioned me calling them out on breeding these dogs until they open admitted it later on and yet you said NOTHING. Here is your pie enjoy!!!). So again address the points about Gammonwood since they are the ones breeding these OUT OF STANDARD PUPS and actually are looking to increase the # with the testing on it's way. I know you are a smart guy H so how about you go through all of Gammonwoods posts and take off the cheer outfit for one second and really think their plan through.
In short I can take the stance I have since I am a lover of the STANDARD ENGLISH MASTIFF and I only have one dog that is unable to have pups and I have no plans to ever breed so I don't have to worry about clicks or advertising or CREATING A NEW DESIGNER PUP to make $. See I am the perfect person to give his opinion as I have no skin in the breeding game and can thus speak openly and HONESTLY while most on here can not. We all clear now H. You O.K. with this or do you want a bio and take me for a long walk on the beach at sunset because I have to say that I am a straight man who is married and I don't get down like that 
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
brindlelove
Registered: 12/26/11
Posts: 278
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 02:06 AM | Reply with quote #274 |
|
Ohh and I have posted pics of Bella on here before in the new member thread and you posted a pic TWO POSTS AFTER ME in the Fave pics thread so I know you have seen what my dog looks like (you also posted in another thread with TWO different pics of Bella). I don't understand why you pretend as if you have no clue what Bella looks like (pics were from pup to 9 months. she is now 14 months). What gives? Pandering to the click? Ohh I know Bella is nothing special so you didn't pay her much mind LOL
__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife! |
| Loading... | |
Janine
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 1,235
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 07:28 AM | Reply with quote #275 |
|
I believe Simon said it is legally allowed to breed the siblings of the pied pups, that is what is ironic. Now, I am typing slowly so you understand, Australian rules will not allow the pied pups to be on the main register, they wont be bred unless the standard is changed in the next few weeks. IF the standard IS changed by some miracle in the next say, 4 years, and pied is allowed, THEN only the breeder can change a dog from the limited to the main. The buyer does not have the power, only the breeder.
If you read some of my comments about designer dogs I have made here in the past, as well as how I feel about puppy farmers you would know I would not even speak to Simon and Jennifer if they were anyway involved in those practices.
To be honest, I dont know why I am trying to reply to anything you say, you dont listen because you dont want to hear, you should spread some of this fire and brimstone where it is needed and do something about puppy farmers instead of woofing off about good people who have done not a damn thing wrong. There are people out there who need to be stopped, what do you do about them, or do you just sit back and hide behind the safety of the computer screen and rip into someone you think is bad.
Get out and do something proactive instead of bad mouthing reputable breeders.
Janine. |
| Loading... | |
Gammonwood
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 120
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 09:52 AM | Reply with quote #276 |
|
Just want to clear the air and make sure there are no misunderstandings. We are not skating any laws. If we cannot breed our pieds we won’t be breeding them. We will continue to breed our lines because we are perfectly within our rights to do so. No breeder would discard their entire bloodlines for a few puppies showing a cosmetic anomaly. This is just one of the issues that any Mastiff breeder out there can be faced with. Breeding can be about different things for different people. We will always have successive generations of our Mastiffs because we love and admire them. We are not promoting our bloodlines to the world. A DNA test for the pied gene is of huge significance. The ability to identify the pied gene means that if allowed, we can breed a traditional coat non-carrier to a parti/pied and get all traditional colours in the litter along with desirable traits that the pieds may carry; and all will meet the standard in terms of colour. For countries whose Breed Standard lists the colour as unacceptable, this will make the strongest case for the inclusion of pieds in breeding programs. We have the opportunity now to have a little more workable space within our precious gene-pool. We’d be foolish breeders if we didn’t at least try to attain this. As for us being proactive towards amending the current breed standard, we’ll do this because we have the right to do this, we live in a democracy. People have a voice and shouldn’t be afraid to use it. Our aspirations are here to be noted. Thanks for all the fantastic images that are being posted! Jen Attached Images:
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 10:03 AM | Reply with quote #277 |
|
One of Tobin's failures!
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 10:14 AM | Reply with quote #278 |
|
 Engraved by J. Wilkes 1800
Prior to the 18th century, we see a greater number of pied illustrations.
It appears that a seachange took place after that period, with white appearing as mantled specimens, but true pieds rarely being expressed in images.
__________________
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... | |
h
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 09/14/07
Posts: 3,842
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 10:19 AM | Reply with quote #279 |
|
Brindlelove,
Thanks, but I still feel I know nothing about you and this is why I have a hard time taking you seriously.
You come across poorly and I thought that by understanding who you are, this might change.
I have met very few people in my lifetime who "march to their own beat" as much as I do. It's my defining characteristic. For you to suggest that I am a type of "cheerleader" is laughable.
I'm just keeping an open mind about this one because it is not as cut and dry as you are ranting it is.
H
__________________
|
| Loading... | |
BlusMom
Registered: 03/23/12
Posts: 420
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 10:46 AM | Reply with quote #280 |
|
H,
Well put.
__________________
Theresa |
| Loading... | |
Holmesy
Registered: 07/08/12
Posts: 9
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 12:21 PM | Reply with quote #281 |
|
| Gammonwood have probably done more for the breed here in Australia, than any other breeder. I find it extremely offensive that you (brindlelove) would try to pigeonhole Jen and Simon with Designer dog breeders or puppy mills. History has recorded and illustrated pied mastiffs. I think that Steve O's point referring to the "moving goalposts" that is the mastiff type/conformation, should again, be highlighted. You may not agree with Gammonwood's (note the correct spelling) beliefs, but there is a big difference between constructive disagreement, and slanderous innuendos. At least Steve validates his arguments with references. Thank god you're not a breeder. |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 01:18 PM | Reply with quote #282 |
|
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 01:23 PM | Reply with quote #283 |
|
Dutch artist Abraham Hondius painting of a mastiff-type 1600's
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 01:28 PM | Reply with quote #284 |
|
 
__________________
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... | |
kcornel4
Registered: 07/07/10
Posts: 284
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 02:44 PM | Reply with quote #285 |
|
Following this thread has been intriguing, as I am interested in historical perspectives about, and evolution of the Mastiff breed into modern times. Given many early artists' depictions (most provided by Steve) I have seen of pied 'mastiff type' dogs that could well be precursors to, or progenitors of the breed as it exists today, I can certainly understand Gammonwood's beliefs that the pied gene is of ancient origin.
But for me, one of the best things is that the discussion of Gammonwood piqued my interest and induced me to actually visit their website (as I hope it has many others). I thought it was fantastic! The breathtakingly beautiful films were incredibly informative (and I got to see what Steve really looks and sounds like). IMO, anyone who has watched the documentaries, viewed at the photos, and read the text of the Gammonwood breeding philosophy could not fail to be impressed by the quality of their dogs, and convinced of their love of, commitment to, and passion about the breed.
__________________
Karen |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 04:31 PM | Reply with quote #286 |
|
Quote: The ancestry of the Bulldog has long been subject to controversy among cynologists and naturalists. Buffon considered the Bulldog as the parent of the Mastiff, while Sydenham Edwards contended that the Bulldog resulted from crossbreeding the large Mastiff and the Pug Dog. The earliest English “book of dogs”, written by Johannes Caius, of Cambridge, in 1576, does not specifically mention a bulldog, suggesting that the bulldog as a breed had not made its appearance yet. In his book, Dr. Caius described the “Mastive” or “Bandogge” as a vast, huge, stubborn, ugly and eager dog, of a heavy and burdenous body, serviceable to “bait and take the bull by the ear”. He added that two dogs at most were sufficient for that purpose, however untamable the bull might be. Still others suggest that both the Mastiff and the Bulldog had a common ancestor in the Alaunt. The Alaunt was defined in a dictionary of 1632 as being like a Mastiff and serving butchers to bring in fierce oxen to keep them in their stalls. Down through the centuries, until a comparatively recent time, the name “Mastiff” has been applied indiscriminatley to all large or massive dogs.
__________________
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: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 04:57 PM | Reply with quote #287 |
|
There is no doubt, that pied types were recognized as Mastiffs at one point in history. The evidence is clear and indisputable!
There is equal evidence, for other non standardized colorations as well.
So, do we allow one in without the others? Or, do we use fair play and exclude, or permit, all historically based colorations?
To me, it's presently a question of need, tradition, consequences and demand, which may, or may not, get the pied added to the standard.
Type can be affected by color and in the Newf, it took time before the Landseer was universally accepted. Usually, a new color must become accustomed to by fanciers, before it becomes mainstreamed. If the color is deemed attractive, there is much less opposition & resistance.
Initially, a pied will seem off-type by those less familiar with this anomaly.
People will initially think a pied is a Saint, which might not bode well for the Mastiff, or the Saint!
Over time, one's eye can adjust and recognize a pied Mastiff from a Saint, provided the pied does not express common Saint coloration, or worse, coupled to fluff-type hair quality.
Therein lies the main caveat in this debate. Will we accept ALL pieds regardless of looking too much like the Saint? Do we limit pied colorations to specific patterns of color? (see below)
VS
Or will it start to blend into......
__________________
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... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 07:59 PM | Reply with quote #288 |
|
Steve
Your long drawn posts never actually get anywhere in conclusion, which to me is very frustrating !!
Large dogs were called Mastiffs before our standard was drawn, some were saint colored and some were our present colors, the standard for our breed states the colors the dog has to be in order to be a Mastiff, and the standard for saints, states there colors !!
If we are to adopt saint colors, why not just amalgamate the breeds into one any color will do breed called MASTAINTS
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 09:16 PM | Reply with quote #289 |
|
Are you really my dad ?
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 09:24 PM | Reply with quote #290 |
|
And you are forgetting one main part of the Mastiff color description !!
Excessive white on body, chest or feet is unacceptable.
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/20/12 at 11:44 PM | Reply with quote #291 |
|
Steve
Your long drawn posts never actually get anywhere in conclusion, which to me is very frustrating !! Sorry you like fast food over fine dining Grant!
Large dogs were called Mastiffs before our standard was drawn, some were saint colored and some were our present colors, the standard for our breed states the colors the dog has to be in order to be a Mastiff, and the standard for saints, states there colors !! The standard states the proper color for a Mastiff, it doesn't state that the color determines if it's a Mastiff, or not!
If we are to adopt saint colors, why not just amalgamate the breeds into one any color will do breed called MASTAINTS The issue is not whether color defines a breed, even though it may, but whether a particular color is valid for a breed, despite confusions that may arise from the uninformed. If the pied is made a legitimate color and adopted into the standard, it will be a Mastiff color, despite the confusions that may occur with the Saint.
One can certainly argue against inclusion and the net effect on breed type, but one can also argue the validity of the color, based on historical references, even though it may raise doubts in those who may see a pied Mastiff as being too Saintly!
__________________
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... | |
Janine
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 1,235
|
| Posted 07/21/12 at 01:17 AM | Reply with quote #292 |
|
Just to clear up one more, actually two more points Brindlelove, Designer Dogs, this, in my opinion equals Spoodle, Moodle, Pugalier, Maltalier, Mug, Jug, Cavoodle etc. All crossbreds. No papers there.
Simon and Jennifers dogs have papers, limited or main register but they are REGISTERED, and the name of the BREED they are registered under is MASTIFF, not ENGLISH MASTIFF.
Janine. |
| Loading... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 07:30 AM | Reply with quote #293 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOiferSteve
Your long drawn posts never actually get anywhere in conclusion, which to me is very frustrating !! Sorry you like fast food over fine dining Grant!
I think you you may be right on that one, as i never feel satisfied after fine dining !!
Large dogs were called Mastiffs before our standard was drawn, some were saint colored and some were our present colors, the standard for our breed states the colors the dog has to be in order to be a Mastiff, and the standard for saints, states there colors !! The standard states the proper color for a Mastiff, it doesn't state that the color determines if it's a Mastiff, or not!
So you are saying, a black and white spotty dog will be seen as a genuine example of our breed ?
If we are to adopt saint colors, why not just amalgamate the breeds into one any color will do breed called MASTAINTS The issue is not whether color defines a breed, even though it may, but whether a particular color is valid for a breed, despite confusions that may arise from the uninformed. If the pied is made a legitimate color and adopted into the standard, it will be a Mastiff color, despite the confusions that may occur with the Saint.
One can certainly argue against inclusion and the net effect on breed type, but one can also argue the validity of the color, based on historical references, even though it may raise doubts in those who may see a pied Mastiff as being too Saintly!
Please show me proof of historical references to our breed !
MAS TAINT http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taint
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 12:26 PM | Reply with quote #294 |
|
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Steve
Your long drawn posts never actually get anywhere in conclusion, which to me is very frustrating !! Sorry you like fast food over fine dining Grant!
I think you you may be right on that one, as i never feel satisfied after fine dining !! It's because you don't savor the meal.
Rushing down a bunch of crap may make you feel satiated, but all you've done is fill your belly with volume. It won't be memorable, even if you leave full!
Large dogs were called Mastiffs before our standard was drawn, some were saint colored and some were our present colors, the standard for our breed states the colors the dog has to be in order to be a Mastiff, and the standard for saints, states there colors !! The standard states the proper color for a Mastiff, it doesn't state that the color determines if it's a Mastiff, or not!
So you are saying, a black and white spotty dog will be seen as a genuine example of our breed ?
Not in color, but it can still be a Mastiff! The modern image does not accommodate for non standard colors, even those colors that may have once existed throughout history. The difference in pieds, is that they do appear from non pied stock and are linked to historical types, at least in phenotype. Therefore, it's very different from a color that has no historical significance, or one that has been artificially created! Always remember the apricot brindle, which was not a color in the standard at one point. How do you reconcile one, but not the other?
If we are to adopt saint colors, why not just amalgamate the breeds into one any color will do breed called MASTAINTS The issue is not whether color defines a breed, even though it may, but whether a particular color is valid for a breed, despite confusions that may arise from the uninformed. If the pied is made a legitimate color and adopted into the standard, it will be a Mastiff color, despite the confusions that may occur with the Saint.
One can certainly argue against inclusion and the net effect on breed type, but one can also argue the validity of the color, based on historical references, even though it may raise doubts in those who may see a pied Mastiff as being too Saintly!
Please show me proof of historical references to our breed !
MAS TAINT http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taint
It's in the historical visual images I've posted, as well as in the written record, by people like Wynn et al.
This is not not a black & white issue (pun intended), both you and Gammonwood raise valid concerns & points, pro and against!
The resolution of this debate can not be decided upon just by referencing the standard. If that were the case, apricot brindles would not be an accepted color at present!
Presently, the pied is not a recognized color. Presently!
__________________
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... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 01:17 PM | Reply with quote #295 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
So you are saying, a black and white spotty dog will be seen as a genuine example of our breed ?
Not in color, but it can still be a Mastiff!
Yes a Mastiff on paper, but with a serious fault, that makes it look like a giant Dalmatian !
The modern image does not accommodate for non standard colors, even those colors that may have once existed throughout history. The difference in pieds, is that they do appear from non pied stock and are linked to historical types, at least in phenotype.
The appearance of a fault, from modern stock that may stem from genes of historical MUTTS, should not be looked at as anything but a fault from the past !!
Therefore, it's very different from a color that has no historical significance, or one that has been artificially created! Always remember the apricot brindle, which was not a color in the standard at one point. How do you reconcile one, but not the other?
There is a big difference in adding a variation of a color already in the standard, to adding a total new color that historical MUTTS had !!!
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 01:39 PM | Reply with quote #296 |
|
So you are saying, a black and white spotty dog will be seen as a genuine example of our breed ?
Not in color, but it can still be a Mastiff!
Yes a Mastiff on paper, but with a serious fault, that makes it look like a giant Dalmatian !
I never said it would not affect type. I am saying that it is still a Mastiff despite the spots! A fluff is still a Mastiff despite the long hair, even though the long hair is out of type for a Mastiff! Spots, as in a Dalmatian, is not a historical color for the Mastiff and therefore, would pose an additional blockage if acceptance was being sought for that pattern.
The modern image does not accommodate for non standard colors, even those colors that may have once existed throughout history. The difference in pieds, is that they do appear from non pied stock and are linked to historical types, at least in phenotype.
The appearance of a fault, from modern stock that may stem from genes of historical MUTTS, should not be looked at as anything but a fault from the past !! You could certainly try to base your case on that premise, but one must make their case based on evidence, not supposition. It's entirely possible for the pied to have been derived through various crosses. But the same case can be made for all the recognized standardized colors, presently accepted in the breed. A present fault, is only due to the trait not being recognized in the standard. Much like apricot brindles at one point in time!
Therefore, it's very different from a color that has no historical significance, or one that has been artificially created! Always remember the apricot brindle, which was not a color in the standard at one point. How do you reconcile one, but not the other?
There is a big difference in adding a variation of a color already in the standard, to adding a total new color that historical MUTTS had !!!
As I've stated, it can certainly be more difficult when seeking acceptance into a standard. The further away you go from historical referenced colors, the more difficult the process. We are not talking about Mantles, Dalmatians, or blues. We are talking about pieds! A case can be made for the pied! Whether it is a strong enough case, remains to be seen.
__________________
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... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 02:12 PM | Reply with quote #297 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOifer
So you are saying, a black and white spotty dog will be seen as a genuine example of our breed ?
Not in color, but it can still be a Mastiff!
Yes a Mastiff on paper, but with a serious fault, that makes it look like a giant Dalmatian !
I never said it would not affect type. I am saying that it is still a Mastiff despite the spots! A fluff is still a Mastiff despite the long hair, even though the long hair is out of type for a Mastiff! Spots, as in a Dalmatian, is not a historical color for the Mastiff and therefore, would pose an additional blockage if acceptance was being sought for that pattern.
The modern image does not accommodate for non standard colors, even those colors that may have once existed throughout history. The difference in pieds, is that they do appear from non pied stock and are linked to historical types, at least in phenotype.
The appearance of a fault, from modern stock that may stem from genes of historical MUTTS, should not be looked at as anything but a fault from the past !! You could certainly try to base your case on that premise, but one must make their case based on evidence, not supposition. It's entirely possible for the pied to have been derived through various crosses. But the same case can be made for all the recognized standardized colors, presently accepted in the breed. A present fault, is only due to the trait not being recognized in the standard. Much like apricot brindles at one point in time!
Therefore, it's very different from a color that has no historical significance, or one that has been artificially created! Always remember the apricot brindle, which was not a color in the standard at one point. How do you reconcile one, but not the other?
There is a big difference in adding a variation of a color already in the standard, to adding a total new color that historical MUTTS had !!!
As I've stated, it can certainly be more difficult when seeking acceptance into a standard. The further away you go from historical referenced colors, the more difficult the process. We are not talking about Mantles, Dalmatians, or blues. We are talking about pieds! A case can be made for the pied! Whether it is a strong enough case, remains to be seen.
All dogs are MUTTS unless documentation or more recent DNA proves otherwise !!
Hearsay and pictures without doc's are not evidence !!
Again, all large bulky dogs were called Mastiffs, before our breed records began!!
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 02:41 PM | Reply with quote #298 |
|
It all depends on the record and time line in question. Before accurate records were kept, one could make an argument that all elephants could not be proven to be African, Indian, or Asian. Yet we know that they existed due to illustrations and the forms we see today.
Similarly, a case can be made for the pied, in that we see ancient illustrations and they do exist today!
It's true that in the past many large dogs were called Mastiff, it's even true today, as we see in newspaper headlines!
DNA does not prove purity of breed, just close generational parentage!
The present standard sets the bar for type, but the standard is a living document, that has been changed before and will be again!
Whether pieds become part of that standard remains to be seen, but there is ample evidence to demonstrate the historical color, even if not the purity of the breed! I might add, that the present purity of the breed cannot be designated by DNA for any color!
__________________
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... | |
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 848
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 03:46 PM | Reply with quote #299 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOifer
It all depends on the record and time line in question.
Our time line has to be from when our present breed Standard was first written, and from that date all deviations from the past were to be bred out, so as to purify the dog to fit the writing.
Before accurate records were kept, one could make an argument that all elephants could not be proven to be African, Indian, or Asian. Yet we know that they existed due to illustrations and the forms we see today.
Elephants do not have a written Standard for humans to breed to, with records to go with it !!
Similarly, a case can be made for the pied, in that we see ancient illustrations and they do exist today!
The illustrations, may or may not be related to our breed, other than that they are dogs, so cannot be counted !!
It's true that in the past many large dogs were called Mastiff, it's even true today, as we see in newspaper headlines!
Our breed took the name of Mastiff at the time of the drawing of the standard, from the name that was given to, any large powerful dog before the writers decided on what the actual breed should look like!!
DNA does not prove purity of breed, just close generational parentage!
Yes, which also means that unless one is going to dig up past generations. It may not be that many generations back that other breeds were involved in the cause of these present pieds !
The present standard sets the bar for type, but the standard is a living document, that has been changed before and will be again!
You have said before, many times, that to change the standard even to make it clearer, would not be an easy task, so to put a stick in the spokes of an already problematical breed, is not going to happen !!
Whether pieds become part of that standard remains to be seen, but there is ample evidence to demonstrate the historical color, even if not the purity of the breed! I might add, that the present purity of the breed cannot be designated by DNA for any color!
The historical color of dogs with no proof of origin !
The present dogs, if to the color stated on the standard, have little chance of being tested, compared to other colors !!
__________________
Grant |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,429
|
| Posted 07/22/12 at 08:24 PM | Reply with quote #300 |
|
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
It all depends on the record and time line in question.
Our time line has to be from when our present breed Standard was first written, and from that date all deviations from the past were to be bred out, so as to purify the dog to fit the writing. That's certainly one conclusion you can form.
Before accurate records were kept, one could make an argument that all elephants could not be proven to be African, Indian, or Asian. Yet we know that they existed due to illustrations and the forms we see today.
Elephants do not have a written Standard for humans to breed to, with records to go with it !! Well, there are written requisites as to form, even though breed standards are not used. Illustrations convey the written word, even though it may not be an official descriptive composite.
Similarly, a case can be made for the pied, in that we see ancient illustrations and they do exist today!
The illustrations, may or may not be related to our breed, other than that they are dogs, so cannot be counted !! So do we erace ALL Mastiff types from the historical record and assume the breed dropped from the sky when the standard was officially formed?
It's true that in the past many large dogs were called Mastiff, it's even true today, as we see in newspaper headlines!
Our breed took the name of Mastiff at the time of the drawing of the standard, from the name that was given to, any large powerful dog before the writers decided on what the actual breed should look like!! Not entirely correct, as Boar hounds and Wolf hounds, were also large, but not always referred to as Mastiffs!
DNA does not prove purity of breed, just close generational parentage!
Yes, which also means that unless one is going to dig up past generations. It may not be that many generations back that other breeds were involved in the cause of these present pieds ! Certainly a point to argue your case!
The present standard sets the bar for type, but the standard is a living document, that has been changed before and will be again!
You have said before, many times, that to change the standard even to make it clearer, would not be an easy task, so to put a stick in the spokes of an already problematical breed, is not going to happen !! Perhaps true. Or, perhaps exceptions get made, if enough pressure is exerted!
Whether pieds become part of that standard remains to be seen, but there is ample evidence to demonstrate the historical color, even if not the purity of the breed! I might add, that the present purity of the breed cannot be designated by DNA for any color!
The historical color of dogs with no proof of origin ! Same holds true for standard colors!
The present dogs, if to the color stated on the standard, have little chance of being tested, compared to other colors !! Not sure of what you mean!
__________________
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... | |
