Well I would have said traceability -this therefore http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3672/23/5/3 seems to negate the whole purpose of the KC's registration system !

The KC registration system was set up to record ancestry so that breeders could breed with knowledge of what lies behind the dogs they are using ...surely anything else is to go back to the kind of 'leap in the dark ' matings done by BYB's and puppy farmers  ...is it enough that a dog simply looks like the breed it's supposed to be  - what about heritable traits ?

I can just about see the rational in those breeds that have very little wriggle room left but should this also be available to breeds like Labs, Springers, GSD etc etc ? .

question to the breeders on here ..would you ever use a dog registered under this scheme ?

Yvonne

This provison has been available for a long time, but not often publiscised, so many did not realise it is available.

In your breed, the breed I first had, the Groenendael a dog was registered as 'Out of Africa' on this basis and was certainly in the back of the pedigree of the bitch I owned.

When an outcross is allowed (like the Corgi input to the Boxer), they use the asterisk system on the progeny for three generations after that no notation is on the pedigrees.

It is certainly a useful tool to help broaden gene pools, though as you say you are taking a chance on what lies behind, but no more than you do when you use a health tested animal with few tested ancestors, especially with the polygenic traits like HD things are far more predictable when you have generations of tested ancestors, and a pattern of results shows.

I thought it was potentially a good idea in some breeds with small gene pools, changed my mind when a dog of one of my breeds last year, was registered under the scheme.

Very popular breed, massively overbred by puppy farmers ..... Massively common to cross breed with a similar ish breed,
This particular dog was missing details on details of grandparents onwards on one side, and the parents on other side not KC reg ..... ( the other side was possibly the most common pet bred lines in the UK), perhaps parents bred without endorsements listed, maybe was a mixed breed ... Certainly a reason why dog not reg....
Not a health check in sight either.

Yet the KC registered it,

To what advantage? The owner now plans on 'studding it out' I suspect.

This was discussed last week in the following thread
http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/141371.html

I too think only endangered breeds should be allowed to be registered in this way.

I'd certainly only want it only allowed if the animal to be registered was first fully health tested, and if no breed specific tests, then hips and eyes to be done as a minimum, as most breeds can have HD, and potentially eye problems, and if ancestry unknown there could be blood from affected breeds in there.

The average COI's for some of the most popular breeds are not exactly low, have a look at Labradors at 6% (same as half uncle to nieces or first cousin matings).

Fully agree with you Yvonne, said it the other day in the thread where the owner of a puppy farmed Cocker Spaniel was applying for KC registration under that scheme. It makes no sense because you have NO idea if you end up doing MUCH closer matings than you otherwise would have done, so what possible use could it be?

The average COI's for some of the most popular breeds are not exactly low, have a look at Labradors at 6% (same as half uncle to nieces or first cousin matings).

The cynic in me thinks that by allowing dogs of unverified parentage to be registered and used, they can quickly lower the COI for a breed! On PAPER!

The KC Pilot scheme is reinstating a registration for dogs that exists many years ago & was ended. However the new scheme requires health tests, DNA profiling & isn't cheap. The orginal option only cost the same as a normal registration.

There are some not"at risk"breeds"that need new blood-way too many Beardies are line/inbred to a champion dog of the 1970s, so much so that the breeders who like his lines have dogs that only have him as the male on some dogs pedigrees after the 4th/5th generations-Addisons disease is way too common in the breed, yet unknown in the working lines(Not obedience but stock working)

I give up with the KC these days.  They just don't seem to care.  The only thing they care about is making money.  Shocked that they insist on DNA profiling as they don't follow up on DNA tests in other matters.

I've used a dog who was registered in this way.  We knew quite a bit about the background of his mother though and she has actually won at Crufts.

If it's to help a small gene pool then I see no problems with this.

The only pain is that they won't register the litter online that have stars behind their names.

There are some not"at risk"breeds"that need new blood-way too many Beardies are line/inbred to a champion dog of the 1970s, so much so that the breeders who like his lines have dogs that only have him as the male on some dogs pedigrees after the 4th/5th generations-Addisons disease is way too common in the breed, yet unknown in the working lines(Not obedience but stock working)

There's also an increase in Thyroid, Hip Dysplasia and kidney problems in this particular breed.  But a year or so ago I saw Show breeders up in arms at the suggestion that blue merle could be bred back in these lines.  Why the uproar??  Because despite the working /stock lines being far more healthy than Show lines, (and being the original beardie) the KC hadn't previously recognised blue merle as a colour and the only way it could be introduced would be by breeding Working lines with Show.  There was some extremely offensive, sneering publications running around (by Show people) about Merles/Working lines yet their introduction could have massivley improved the overall health of this breed.

The only reason the KC doesn't recognize Merle's(at the moment)is because when the KC version was revived by Mrs Willison, she didn't like merles so the colour wasn't included in the breed standard. Denise Barley's Quinbury Stormdrifter at Runival CDEx I believe sired at least one merle & of course unless they are tri merles, most modern breeders register them as blue/white or slate/white as beardie coat colour changes a lot during their early years.

Interestingly enough one of the main anti merle/working beardie people has expressed an interest in using any half working dog a friend of mine may breed ???

If it's to help a small gene pool then I see no problems with this.

But with an unknown pedigree and a small genepool, you are even more likely to end up doing a very close mating without knowing about it.

The only reason the KC doesn't recognize Merle's(at the moment)is because when the KC version was revived by Mrs Willison, she didn't like merles so the colour wasn't included in the breed standard. Denise Barley's Quinbury Stormdrifter at Runival CDEx I believe sired at least one merle & of course unless they are tri merles, most modern breeders register them as blue/white or slate/white as beardie coat colour changes a lot during their early years.

Ssshhh Don't say that too loudly!!  Blues are extremely well coveted and the owners would have a thrombie if classed as 'merles'.  The slogan going round a year or so back was' if it's a merle it's not a beardie' so it's be a real insult to a blue.

ROFLMAO many"Blues"are not blue at all but light slates-it's all in the pigmentation !!!

I once saw a merle beardie at Crufts being taken outside for exercise & when it returned it was a blue LOLOL I said nothing & just smiled that a top winning kennel could produce a merle & then hide the fact that it was a blue merle!!

the KC hadn't previously recognised blue merle as a colour and the only way it could be introduced would be by breeding Working lines with Show.  There was some extremely offensive, sneering publications running around (by Show people) about Merles/Working lines yet their introduction could have massivley improved the overall health of this breed.

I can understand why people do NOT want the merle gene introduced into breeds where it isn't part of the breed standard or isn't common -because after all, if as you say in beardies it can appear and not be very obvious then you could clearly end up with problems if people (novices) inadvertently mated together two merles. But as far as working and show lines go, I would have said it is a MUCH better way to get fresh blood into a breed by using working lines on show lines where there is a distinctive split, rather than using dogs of unknown parentage. As many people here know I currently have a Malinois who is from a working (police dog) father mated to a show bitch. (I did not breed her, bought her in, did however breed her mother.) She has her faults (although far less than pure working dogs, as far as looks go), but she has many positives as well, in particular temperament, and I think it has been a very positive experience and I for one feel that continuing to introduce working blood now and then is what I will do as it will help with several issues, not just the gene pool. And if Yvonne is still reading (as she knows my bitch) -I met Penny's litter sister at NWPBS and guess what, she had ended up looking far more like a show dog (smaller ears for a start), in fact I'd NEVER have guessed who she was had I not known! Just my luck it wasn't obvious as pups who would end up taking after their father, but it just goes to show it is possible to end up with looks as well, so once the show lines are brought back in with the next generation I have high hopes they will get the looks back.

It was from a different country than here and we did know some of the dogs history, so her lines weren't that close....

I can understand why people do NOT want the merle gene introduced into breeds where it isn't part of the breed standard or isn't common -because after all, if as you say in beardies it can appear and not be very obvious then you could clearly end up with problems if people (novices) inadvertently mated together two merles.

As far as I can make out, Show breeders insist there are no Merles in Show lines - only in Working lines hence the slogan.  So you are only likely to to mate 2 merles together in working stock lines  and that will always have been the case.  If working stock were used to widen the gene pool in Show lines then, if show breeders are correct, you can't inadvertantly breed 2 merles together because there aren't any in Show lines. 

However, if it is right that  blue/white show lines are really merles then you could breed 2 merles together, one from Show and one from Working but I have never heard that about Blues before today.

Not ALL blue beardies are merles, but there have been merles in showlines, just they are not called merles. The same goes for tri Beardies the markings are so minute in most that they are missed. I have judged Beardies that are tris & when I have done critiques the owners were surprised as they thought their dogs were black/white/blue/white,slate/white etc Most modern Beardie breeders/show owners etc ignore tris & register the dogs as bi colours

Merle cannot be introduced into Beardies it is already there-just ignored

But with an unknown pedigree and a small genepool, you are even more likely to end up doing a very close mating without knowing about it.

Precisely Goldmali,

Trevor, no......... I wouldn't wish to touch any prodigy with a barge pole from such a dam or sire, I like to know exactly where a dog comes from, and what is in it, that is the whole point of being KC reg, its supposed to be a sigh of relief in knowing......this scheme for me takes away that security blanket altogether, I don't like wondering, I like to know.

I agree.  I don't see how bringing in unknown genes is any better than being selective with a few known genes.  I'd much rather know what I'm dealing with.

I was thinking about using a well known stud dog a few years ago and he was very closely bred.  My bitch carried some similar relatives and I asked his breeder/owner, a very well established and respected older breeder is she or anyone else had done a similar mating.  Her reply?  "When we do a mating we breed for the positive points that we want to continue.  If we produce faults that we're not happy with, then we deal with it", meaning that those dogs would at best be removed from the breeding program and at worst be culled - a swear word today but it was the way that the old breeders controlled their lines.

Brainless the dog you are thinking of was called 'Noir of Rhodesia' and he was imported in the mid 60 's from the Congo. An all rounder champ show judge of the time declared him a Groenendael even though he was a short haired black dog and is now thought more likely to have been a GSD cross. He was used twice at stud and introduced untypical proportions, heads, ears, eye colour and coats that took many generations to breed out.

Of course DNA profiling would now prevent ths happening but would do nothing  to determine the parentage of dogs registered in this way and in a breed such as mine where epilepsy is a significant concern it is VITAL  that we know the provenance of dogs used for breeding.

But for me there is the bigger question .....if not traceability then just WHAT is the registration system for ? It seems to me that the KC needs to decide what it really stands for , at the moment it seems driven by whatever can bring in the most income hence the move towards registering cross breeds and previously unregisterable dogs ...but once the integrity of its registration system is compromised by initiatives like this then we may well all simply register our dogs with DLR instead ! ....heck without integrity why bother to register at all ...most breeds now have their own databases and we may as well just use those as a record of ancestry and save ourselves a few quid !!!

Yvonne

>>Denise Barley's Quinbury Stormdrifter at Runival CDEx I believe sired at least one merle & of course unless they are tri merles, most modern breeders register them as blue/white or slate/white as beardie coat colour changes a lot during their early years.

Posted on behalf of Denise Barley
"Quinbury Stormdrifter did
NOT sire a merle. Not as far as I know, anyway! For a start, he would
have had to mate one to do that."

There is a lot of rubbish being posted here about Merle beardies and their presence in show lines. Primarily it is being assumed that the merle gene is recessive and can hide in a breed line and suddenly appear. This is not so it is heterozygous (Mm or mM) and as such is a dominant gene.

Blue beardies are NOT merles. Blue is the dilute form of Black just as Fawn is the dilute form of Brown,

There are no merles in the current show lines of bearded collies and the show breed community is looking to ensure that it remains that way. Merles continue to be bred for the working and pet community with all of the risks that entails.

Denise Barleys Quinbury Stormdrifter most definitely has not sired merle puppies. In this instance I think it would have been polite, at least, to have checked this with the breeder before making such a statement.

In the meantime a little research into canine genetics could well prevent further embarrassment.

agree Martin thanks for posting.. I have a blue BC.

Thanks for putting it straight.  I had never heard of that either until this thread. I most definitely remember the furore when it was suggested that merle be brought in to Show lines as they would have to mate with Working lines simply because there were no merle show lines to breed from.

Excellent post MartinCB. For a Merle to be produced, one of the parents must be a Merle. Incidentally, Merle is not a colour, it is the pattern produced by the merle gene acting on the pigment ( melanin ) in the coat. Also, as melanin plays a role in conduction in the auditory nerve, Merles have frequently produced deaf puppies. This is seen in all breeds where dappled/speckled coats are the norm .All white dogs have the same problem. BAER hearing testing identifies deafness in puppies and should be done under 12 weeks of age.
However, in Border Collies it is possible for some coat colours to mask the affect of the Merle gene. Sable and E/Australian/Golden Red can produce this phenomenon. It is therefore possible for such dogs to be 'phantom' Merles but only if one parent is a Merle.Extreme care should be taken when breeding from these dogs to ensure that a Double Merle mating doesn't occur. I've got a little seal/white girl out of my Blue Merle Tri girl. As seal is a variation of sable, I'm 'assuming' that she is a Merle .

Also, whereas blue is the dilute  form of black , Blue Merles are essentially black/white but with the action of the Merle gene on the coat colour. The dilute of a Blue Merle is 'Slate'. So, we also have Red Merles with the dilute gene producing 'Lilac' Merles etc

Oh dear oh dear What you are ALL forgetting is that ALL beardies registered with the KC come from Working Beardies so to say there is NO Merle in show bearded collie lines is totally incorrect.

If you show beardie folk can prove that no merle is behind the show lines you would have to know ALL the lines behind the Bothkennars & their colours which I very much doubt.

Beardies share the same roots as Roughs, Smooths, Shetland Sheepdogs & Border Collies long before the Kennel Club & shows existed & for them NOT to have all the same possible colours is impossible to prove.

What is so frightening about Merles ? especially today with DNA available prior to breeding. TBH Show Beardies in the main so far from the original dogs as a breed can be. I can remember seeing a semi erect ears Beardie at Manchester Championship show(when it was at Belle Vue) bred by one of the top kennels of the day from very old bloodlines, was that a Beardie ? It certainly was & the breeders saw the dog & were they horrified-no because they were knowleable enough to realize that throw backs do occur. Don't forget that Merles can be "masked"& not appear to be merle at all, unless you know what to look for. In Shelties some are masked Merles whose actual colour can only be seen at birth or by the fact they have one or both blue eyes.

I have seen some very very unblue blue Beardies in the show ring as they do not have blue pigment & are in fact very pale slates.

The furore only came from modern breeders & those"in power"at the main breed club. Why would some one who so publicly denouced using working Beardies for breeding contact a forward looking breeder who is considering using a Working Beardie in her breeding plans to open up the exceptionally inbred lines of the modern Show Breeded Collie ???? One of the dogs the breeder is considering using has merles in his pedigree ???? A case of do what I say & not what I do me thinks

Nowhere did I write or state that ALL blues are merles. A masked merle would not be identificable as an adult

Sorry Tommee but your understanding of genetics is clearly seriously lacking. To state that because all show beardies originated from working lines and must therefore be carrying the merle gene is simply rubbish. You also state that beardies originate from the same dogs as other "collies". i suggest you read up on the origins of the breed.

You refer to masked merles, by this I assume you actually mean "Cryptic" or "Phantom" merles. As I have already stated to produce a merle, cryptic or otherwise, requires a mating between two dogs, one of which must be carrying the merle gene. This gene is not recessive and cannot just hide waiting to pounce when no-one is looking. I think someone would have noticed if they had produced a merle at some time in their breeding career.

You seem to have an issue with blue beardies. Blues are produced when the dilute gene is present thus reducing the amount of eumelanin in the pigmentation. This results with a dog with a lighter grey coat and the characteristic pigmentation of the nose and eyes. This is obviously a variable process so there are lighter or darker blues.

If you are not aware of the health issues of the merle gene then I am somewhat surprised at your ignorance. I did suggest some research may prevent further embarrassment but clearly you didn't read quite that far.

Sorry Yvonne amazing how the memory plays tricks ref the name.

I must say in many ways except for health scheme records using an imported dogs is also just as full of unknowns, especially in my breed where there often is pretty much little photographic records in the Scandinavian lines of anything but some of the most influential (usually male) ancestors, as showing is pretty much viewed as secondary.

Tommee, You were keen to mention a breeder and their breeding whilst under a anon log in, but what is your experience.  As you say if you are a judge, and have this knowledge, then surely we should know who you are, it is easy to wind people up when they do not know who they are talking to,  have the courage of your convictions and advise us of who you are and what your background in the bearded collie is?

Yes I agree, I find your comments intriguing, interesting, ill educated and very inaccurate.  I am quite prepared to have a civilised discussion with anyone on issues I feel so strongly about.  Personally I have a Champion bitch who I bred and is in fact a blue, now I ask myself 'is she a blue at all'? Your comment about a top breeder showing a merle at Crufts, I am sure I'm not alone in wondering who is person was? Please enlighten us!! I'm not prepared to make my comments and not put a name to my post, signing off Cath Moffat, Kyleca Bearded Collies!

Yes Tommee, i agree with Cath, why remain anonymous when stating such accusations and "facts" about breeders?
And i also wonder why there seems to be a problem with "show breeders" who don't want merle in the breed???
Let me reverse the question; WHY do "working bc breeders" want "showbreeders" to allow merle in the breed anyway?
To me this makes no sense and it seems to have nothing to do with the issue about healthproblems in the breed whatsoever.

Sorry I don't know any of you as you do not use your real names so are all anon to me.

Just one thing Working Beardie breeders are not wanting to have the Show breeders use their dogs to introduce merle into show breeders. Most will not allow their dogs within a mile of a show bitch & it has been approaches by breeders of Show Beardies, who realize the severe health problems in certain lines-which of course are never discussed in public, nor declared to the public looking for a healthy pet-that the gene pool must be widened & unless you intend to introduce another breed then there is nowhere else to go as bringing dogs in from abroad still means you are going back to Bothkennars as they are descendants of KC registered exports.

As for the"Slate"blues with BLACK pigment ? Blues should have blue pigment not black which "Slate"blues have.

As to there have never been any Merle's in KC Beardies-----ooooops the 1912-1964 "The official Breed Standard in force from 1912 - 1964 described colour as "immaterial" but mentioned that eyes should "match the coat in colour, the typical wall eye (otherwise called china or marble), either single or double, suiting the mirl (sic) coat."

Perhaps none of you Bearded Collie experts were around pre 1964 ????????

Forgot to add

The Many of the early beardies came from either ISDS registered parents or totally unknown backgrounds so stamping your feet & claiming that there are no merles in Show Beardie bloodlines is exceptionally speculative

Just for the record:-

Sue CB  is me Sue Courtenay-Blake Tousietykes Bearded Collies
Martin CB is my husband Martin Courtenay-Blake

we would still like to Know you Tommee ???

And just for the record I actually signed my name off on my post, so please Tommee, introduce yourself??

Love Beardies

In answer to the question of why show breeders were against the introduction of merle I did a quick search and found this:

http://www.thebeardedcollieclubofscotland.co.uk/index.php/Beardies/news/merle_advert_in_dog_world_our_dogs/

I don't know if it answers the question but it does show the resistance at the time.

As can be seen, there were several clubs and many breeders putting their name to the document.

> The Many of the early beardies came from either ISDS registered parents or totally unknown backgrounds so stamping your feet & claiming that there are no merles in Show Beardie bloodlines is exceptionally speculative

As I understand it for merles to occur one parent must be merle.

so during the formation of the breed if merles were used and only non merle offspring were bred from after that, there is no merle in the show lines as it was eliminated.

As merle does carry health issues if not used very carefully, and the problem of merle being possibly masked in certain colours, it surely is a wise policy to exclude it.

I assume the working line dogs are not exclusively merle, as surely at least half have to be non merle, then using the non merle dogs would not re-introduce the pattern, and it's health issues can be avoided.

The problem for show breeders is I assume that the working dogs are possibly too different in breed type to merge into their show liens and produce the show worthy dogs they hope to produce, so it might take a few generations to get back on track, so would only be attempted by those who can see no other way of avoiding whatever negatives or health issues the current show lines may have.

I have just had a stud enquiry from a pet owner whose dog isn't registered.  She got the bitch as a rescue but has 'paperwork' showing the parents as being from well known show lines and the sire a Champion.  No idea why litter wasn't registered but have passed the details of this scheme on to her to see if she's interested in this as she wanted to register her litter etc.

Be very interesting to know how she gets on.

Most likely endorsed parents, in which case the KC should not register, or certainly not without reference to those who placed the endorsements, could have been a serious health issue for example..

Are the papers even correct??

Irresponsible to consider breeding from a rescue bitch. No guarantee that the papers are valid/accurate and no guarantee , therefore , that she is from healthy stock. If the owner wishes to breed she should do her homework, buy a top quality bitch and do it responsibly. I'm surprised that the rescue she got her girl from did not place some restrictions on her use for breeding.

She has a 'pedigree' - I have suggested to her that she contacts the breeder to see if any of this information is likely to be correct.