Labrador colours, a guess anyone? Discussions

Because if you breed solely for working ability and forget about the looks, the looks (obviously achieved originally through selective breeding for certain physical traits) start slowly slipping away. I don't think it is so much the fact that working people have breed for a specific 'look' because they vary quite considerably. There are some really good looking working dogs (a few stud dogs in particular come to mind) and some that look like a different breed entirely.

Well Id certainly do that if I were selling them. Point being, they have no clue as to how they will turn out, they will probably have only the mother to go on, and as most pet buyers have no knowledge of that either before they see the pups, how can they know what they are buying?

Yes they were and if you look at this picture of Dual Champion Banchory Bolo from 1915, almost 100yrs ago, I think its fairly easy to see that the working type is the one thats changed the most.

http://www.enslumens.ru/aboutlab_clip_image003_0001.jpg

There have always been dogs that vary from the norm, and as with everything, fashion and trends will cause such animals to be used. Regardless of how a dog looks, how close it is to what it SHOULD be like, will often be ignored in favour of what it may have done, therefore the type can easily be lost quickly and another type emerge.

Really? I think Cockers and Springers are by far the most removed types there are. Cant ever remember seeing a show bred cocker or springer with deformed, bent front legs.

I didnt say they lacked stamina, I say they thought they would have more stamina, they dont. That is proven fact with those that do show and also work shoots during the winter. They choose a type, the working folk have never given the show type a chance, not because they have seen them fail, but because they purely dont want one!

Their choice, you have a dog capable of workingn in trials, yes? Why arent you out there doing it? Why arent you showing the dogs? YOUR choice.

Who knows - but having one of my 3/4 show bred black boys go to a working home from my last litter - will be interesting to see how he gets on.

None of my dogs have straight forward pedigrees, although the youngsters now have a strong leaning towards show breeding - but lack the substance of SOME of their showbred counterparts (all those who think they know so much about showbred labs and believe them to be fat really should get out there and establish the facts).

My youngsters do alright by me, have superb temperaments and retrieving instincts and show good gundog potential and make fabulous footwarmers what more could a girl ask

There is no need to be downright rude and provocative, I haven't a clue why you seem to enjoy bullying and baiting people, or whether you're just ignorant of how you come across.

The working folk don't need to give the show lines a chance, because many of them have dogs that fit the breed standard and do what it says on the tin, it's just their interpretation of the breed standard differs to the show ring, which is subject to fashion. How is it a proven fact if the show people don't work their dogs, or compete with them to the same extent, that show Labs have greater stamina overall? What a rubbish conclusion to draw from no evidence??

Not all the past champions look like blue prints of anything we see in the show ring today, and to state that is misleading, some of them looked like they'd been hit with the ugly stick to be quite frank, but obviously they impressed at the time, and were the type of Labrador being rewarded.

You are absolutely wrong about spaniels, any quick google will show you the origins of the breed in the 1900's are very different to the dome headed, short coupled dogs you see in the ring today, that lack the hunting style of movement. The origins of the American Cocker Spaniel, looked very much like our own working cocker spaniel, and look where fashion has got that particular breed, it is far removed from any appearance of a working cocker.

One of the founding dogs of the Am Cocker Spaniel:


The History of Cocker Spaniels

WHAT??!! Im not being rude, jeeeeees! Its you doing all the name calling, for petes sake! What have I said thats rude? Was it that its your choice what you do with your dogs? Well excuse me for thinking that, see I thought that was exactly who's choice it was!

Why dont you ask the people themselves instead of speculating why they dont work and show to a large degree? You are the one moaning about it, Im saying they probably dont want to do both, or dont have the time/money to fully commit to both.

Re the Cocker, very much like many of todays and goes to show that a coat didnt stop a dog working!

You need to get a nice British shorthair cat too, they compliment the foot warmers as you can use them as pillows, like memory foam, they go back to their original shape when you take your head off them!

haha i shouted that at the TV!!!!!

Good post, and completey agree, as you say, the divide has not come about by two sides of a coin saying, I want this or that in my breed, its probably more to do with the fact that when one ignores a breed standard, diversity sets in, and as with such a largely popular / populated breed as the lab, the diversity is huge.

Someone said earlier, that most people dont know what a breed standard Lab, should look like (or words to that effect) I agree , I dont think most of Joe public buy a Lab because it fits the show or working lines, they buy them from pet breeders (look in any local paper they along with a few other overpopulated breeds will be ten a penny), and what they turn out to look like is probably the furthest thing on their minds, the price will be first, and colour second!

Breed standards are just that, ignore them and you end up with dogs that dont resemble said breed , that also includes colour.

Breed a diluted Chocolate to an overly large/small, thin, pointed nose , other dog that loosely goes under the tittle of Labrador, and you end up with something that needs a lot of imagination at work to describe it as a Lab.


If you are going to breed , make sure the dogs concerned fit breed standard, which will enable the dog to be multi purpose .

A diluted chocolate is a lilac, a light chocolate has less melanin present.

As long as a dog is loved and wanted it doesn't matter what it looks like.

rune

My couple of non-conformists lol. Be as critical as you please, I won't be offended, I know they're not perfect.

Storm, is this chocolate dark enough?
[/URL][/IMG]

Nyle, the used to be solid black, now with a chocolate tinge to the fur covering his head/face. Though its not vissable in that pic.
[/URL][/IMG]

Eta

Storm is far from a nutty choc lab, infact, out of the 3 we've had from pups, he's been the easiest to train, the calmest, and by far the most intelligent.

Refcolour, I'm in the why should a dog that is in all other aspects a good example of the breed, has working ability, and good health test results, be penalised for its colour camp.

If the colour doesn't have any detrimental health/temperamental trates associated with it, then what is the problem.

Dog's shouldn't be bred just for colour, but on the other hand, they shouldn't be excluded from showing, working or breeding, because of it alone either.

A good example of the breed is far more than just the colour of its coat, its the whole package, health, temperament and physical construction. Colour is but one ellament, one piece that completes the puzzle, and imo should be one of the last things to be considered when determining the quality of a dog, esp, if the only reason for holding it against a dog is assthetics.

Just because a lab maybe a undesirable to some colour or shade, does not make it any less of a labrador. After all, its colour has nothing to do with its ability to work, or to clear the coffee table with one wag of its tail lol.

Jmo.

right ive read this thread from start to finish (took me a while )

colour wise there is only black, yellow and chocolate. i know there are different shades, particularly of the yellow, when james had bailey his lab he was nearly white, yet his father was red fox (to put it correctly as someone mentioned it earlier ) and his mother was in the middle. he was from full working lines and to be honest i dont think he looked much like a lab, but i prefer the show looking type. just my opinion. i like them stocky and a bit chunkier but not OVERWEIGHT.

as for varying colours in chocolate i see it alot at work as the most common dog we have in is the lab. i see the "working type" the "show type" and the just plain "badly bred" type. to be honest i dont think there is anything wrong with either one as i havent bought any of them it is up to the person who has. i would chose a more show type lab but thats what i prefer. i also wouldnt have a chocolate, if i did have a specific colour it would be black.

i dont think show types are specifically overweight, its like any dog of any breed can be overweight or underweight. some of the "working types" we have in i think look too skinny, but we have had plenty of pet labs that are overweight that arent from show lines.

i think im babbling now because ive read so much and trying to remember it

so i will finish my post with a picture of bailey, a lab from pure working lines (and personally i think the breeder was a bit dodgy too, but OH always thought with his heart not his head) Bailey is now a bomb disposal dog in the police force






aww i do miss him !

When it boils down to it, its impossible to get a standard in a breed that has so many different variables. You have got two different types that cross over, you have got people that want a pet, a working dog or one to show, each one will have different needs/wants and likes. That happens with horses, cats, dogs, even guinea pigs or mice. Everyone sees colours slightly differently so what will be pleasing to one will be not liked by another. Who can say what 'chocolate' in the breed standard actually means, there is no colour chart. As with everything, its open to interpretation.

I know my Maple is probably one of the snipey whippety types, however she has decent dogs in her pedigree, I liked her breeder, met both mum and dad and seeing as Maple is going to be a part of my family for the next 15 years and I want to do all sorts of things with her, she came home with us and I love her to pieces. I could work her, I could do agility with her or I could just play ball in the field and have fun. Thats actually all that matters, that people have chosen what they want.

This world is full of diversity, the working people have the dogs they like, the show people have the dogs they like, the pet owners have the dogs they like, and well life is like a box of chocolates, everyone is different (and all different colours)

Its one thing breeding to a standard, another one entirely breeding to 'type'.

Which has just reminded me of something.
The gene you describe Rune, is a Dilution gene, sometimes called Blue dilution/Maltese dilution, which is a recessive and in a homozygous form changes Black to Blue, and Chocolate to Lilac. The Blue Dilution gene re-arranges the way the pigment granules are arranged within the hair-shaft, which gives a different ocular effect to the human eye, in effect changing the colour.

But there are also other genes which can dilute or modify colour and not all of them have been mapped in all species.

And in other species there is more than one gene for Chocolate, and sometimes they are on the same locus as the usual Chocolate.

In cats there is b(l) which gives us Cinnamon cats and Sorrel Abyssinians - is is on the same locus as chocolate and can be carried by it. Which leads me onto something else, Chocolate cats carrying cinnamon can have a much brighter redder lighter colour than chocolate cats who don't.

In mice I think there are three or more genes that can cause a 'chocolate' coat - from the usual Chocolate gene (bb) to Cordovan and also another whose name escapes me.

What if there is more than one chocolate gene in Labs, giving rise to the variation in shades?

That touches back to what I said before - there is a huge variation in Yellows caused by modifying genes lightening and darkening the yellow. Those same genes could easily affect the shade of chocolate as well. And as seen in cats, just carrying a different colour gene can sometimes have a 'bleed-through' effect and alter the shade.

Well, absolutely! But it's fun to discuss the whys and wherefores sometimes

Genetics doesn't say I'm wrong, but you apparently do. Yellow to chocolate does not necessarily produce poor eye pigmentation, because coat colour and eye colour are not determined by the same genes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing here, since my bitch is paler then you perceive her as being inferior stock?

Again, my bitch is obviously inferior, with her not being a darker shade of liver.

And regardless to what genetics say?

No doubt 100 years ago you'd have drowned her at birth

Really, I thought you wanted me to post just so you could pick it to pieces?

And yet, after politely explaining that perhaps life isn't so simple, you push the fact, how nice of you.

So I don't just take the words of someone who is very well known, been in the breed for years, and openly states at shows that 'their breed' needs to carry extra weight to get anywhere at champ level?

To me, it's a great shame that anyone with such knowledge chooses to bully others, whether intentionally or not. You've obviously been involved with a number of breeds for a number of years, perhaps you've become acclimiatised to a certain way that things are posted online, but I know certainly I'm not the only one who feels your posts come across as very pointed, sometimes unnecessarily so.

I've said this a few times to people, and I don't mind posting it at this point, I value the opinion of people I respect, nuff said.

Sounds like the australian red in collies.

rune

are you serious? Please tell me you was joking?

Oh, possibly! I would have to have a re-read through what I found about Australian red, although I thought it was the ee gene (same as red in setters, yellow labs, GRs etc. etc.)