Not my breed but I suspect it's more about knowing what's behind and what to mix together............

In days gone by old breeders would have put the white ones in a bucket so that they weren't bred from and weren't a liability to home if they were deaf, but of course that's not politically correct these days.  But then the average home didn't have a pedigree dog and the quality ones were keep within the large show kennels, where people had knowledge about breeding!

But if what you say is true, and I have not reason to doubt you if it eliminates the majority it would be a big step forward and the rest could be dealt with by careful breeding

Now this isn't my breed at all so know very little but I'd have thought it would make more sense to treat it more along the lines of Merles -don't mate two together.

Think it may be the same as with blues and browns the attitude is if you want to be sure mate two together which does not seem to achieve much accept dilutes but if doing it causes a chance of a pup with a health issue then something needs to be done.

Like you it is not my breed but that does not mean I do not care about the problem, I just have no input. Not mating two flash together may or may not work although I believe it reduces the chance - I believe a good deal more research is needed by both the clubs and those breeding if there is ever to be a chance of eradicating this and perhaps at the moment it is considered one of the smaller problems, I don't know but would be happy to be told.

Many years ago I was quizzing a very experienced 'old school' breeder in my breed about her well used stud dog.  I knew there was a possible problem that I would be doubling up on a few generations back but he also had some super qualities that I had in my bitch line and wanted to 'cement' into my line.  When I asked her if he had produced any of these problems she replied, "When we breed we breed for the qualities than we want.  If we produce things that we don't want, then we deal with what we've produced, don't pass it on to others and remove it from our breeding line."  A very different attitude to breeding today.

> Now this isn't my breed at all so know very little but I'd have thought it would make more sense to treat it more along the lines of Merles -don't mate two together.

In this breed ( which I have bred for over 30 years - not the one in my avatar) NO one would dream of mating a white dog or bitch let alone to each other. The risks are too high and whats the point anyway?

All of this breed carry the potential to produce white puppies, and white to white will pretty much give you a whole white ( and probably deaf) litter.

Champions produce whites, Ive produced whites and all are sold for a reduced price and WITHOUT registration documents to try to limit the unscrupulous mating of white adults.
At one time, 50% of all boxers in rescue were whites. In some cases because they are (more) difficult to train if they are deaf,the other reason being people buy or are given them to 'save their lives' or are cheap. Never a good reason to embark on dog ownership.

tooolz I meant not mating two dogs with lots of white on together, not breeding from whites -does that help to reduce the incidences of white pups? The reason for wondering was that in bi-colour cats (i.e. cats with white markings) you refer to them as low white, high white and van, and if you mate two high whites or two vans together (i.e. those with the most white) you will end up getting kittens with less and less colour and more white. (A classic bi-colour has white legs, white chest and a white blaze, a van has a white body with coloured ears, tails and the odd spot on the body and maybe on the face.)

Toolz - a genuine question, not a criticism, but why not register the non-standard puppies but endorse them?

Marianne, I have no information about white to white matings as I dont know anyone who has done it.
I have heard of some deliberate matings ( who coincidently used their friends white dog - they never travel these people) which gave all white/deaf litters, this is also true from what rescue report.

If breeders have very flashy dogs they do try to use less flashy mates but this is not always the golden rule. Some dogs produce very few whites and others too many.

> Toolz - a genuine question, not a criticism, but why not register the non-standard puppies but endorse them?

A 'pedigree - with papers' dog is slightly more tempting to the BYB as they can show a family tree.
With nothing at all to pass on to buyers it may just deter further.

I did register the white pups I produced in the latter years, but only placed them ( without their paperwork) with trusted aquaintances.

It is something that I have wondered about.
If a puppy is coloured in such a way that there is no way that it fits the breed standard, can it still be registered with the KC?
In my breed, most colours are acceptable, with white markings, but white must not predominate. I have seen registered dogs that are almost entirely white. Surely they should not be eligable for registration if they do not fit the criteria?

Sassinak, the Kennel Club will register any dog from KC Registered parents with few exceptions (helath untested Irish Setters immediately comes to mind) but their pedigree is usually marked as non standard colour. My breeds code of ethics states that only black/white or black/roan may be registered. Other colours will not be allowed and any member registering such a pup will be dealt with accordingly. BUT the Kenel Club will still register a brown and white, or a tri colour pup.

To help me and possibly other can you say which breeds this affects.  You mentioned the ASd and assume BBD's.  I've known a white GSD that certainly wasn't deaf.  Collies are not Marle to Marle as produces defects.

is it deffinite that all white 'defected' dogs are going to be deaf/bad genes in some way.

I'm asking out of curiosity to 'broarden my horizens' lol.

We're going a bit off topic. :)  I wonder if we ought to start a new educative thread??? :)

>tooolz I meant not mating two dogs with lots of white on together, not breeding from whites -does that help to reduce the incidences of white pups?

As I understand it, in this breed if you only mate 'flashy' (those with white markings) to 'plain' (those without) the incidence of white puppies is much reduced. If this was to becme accepted practice then it follows that the number of deaf individuals would also fall.

> As I understand it, in this breed if you only mate 'flashy' (those with white markings) to 'plain' (those without) the incidence of white puppies is much reduced. If this was to becme accepted practice then it follows that the number of deaf individuals would also fall.

As a rule of thumb yes, but not in all cases.
Some dogs do seem to produce a higher incidence than others and they are not always the flashiest marked.

My nephew ( one of the last breeders of this breed left in my family) has just had a litter of nine of which 5 were white. His bitch is a very plain black faced red bitch and was mated to a reasonably well marked brindle dog but not overly so.
The stud has not had enough litters to reliably say whether he will often produce high ratios or if it was just a bad combination.

As a rule of thumb yes, but not in all cases.
Some dogs do seem to produce a higher incidence than others and they are not always the flashiest marked.

So as we keep saying, it's another example of really knowing the dogs in the pedigrees and the wider breed too in order to reduce problems?

You are correct GSD's & white Golden Retrievers do not suffer the linked deafness mainly because they are not white, the coat being cream.

Not sure how many of the true white breeds suffer but I do know that Boxers and Dalmatians are amongst those effected.

Many breeders of this particular breed are already trying to reduce/eliminate the white puppies by careful selection of sire and dam.  By mating plain to flashy you can usually guarantee that there will be no whites.  I have done plain dog to flashy bitch and flashy dog to plain bitch resulting in two litters of six with no whites and a mix of plain and flashy pups.  I have kept a plain bitch from one litter and a flashy bitch from the other and, if and when the times comes, I will follow the same rule again.  Having produced a deaf white from a flashy to flashy mating I do not want the responsibility of this happening again.  I have also noticed that the plains are being shown more and with some success.  Another advantage of using the plains is that it also helps to reduce the number of unpigmented third eyelids too.  For many years breeders have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater when they ignored plains in favour of those with flashy (ie 'show' type) markings.  How many excellent dogs and bitches have ended up falling out of the breeding pool just because they lacked white markings?  After all, the breed standard is 'White markings acceptable not exceeding one-third of ground colour' not 'White markings are MANDATORY :-) Just MHO ;-)

Jacksgirl, if only all breeders felt as you do. Always feel guilty talking about a breed that is not mine but I do feel this problem has been increased by nothing more important than fashion. Yes, a flashy dog looks very nice but then so does a solid and I am pleased to hear the plain (solid) colours are starting to hold their own in the show ring. Your judges must make sure they do not favour the dog with flash against those with solid colour in fact they perhaps should lean a little towards the solid if they believe them to carry genes that do not contribute towards the production of a deaf pup and the consequential need to PTS.

I'm closing this now as it's become a general discussion about a specific breed. I see a new thread has been started and this is now continuing on the General board.